GNSO Email Archives: [ga]

ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives
[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>
Re: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?

To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?
From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:12:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=ikDKe4zlhoCOSC0RPtGWXFr0ILgnfWOk7xNCc1JjhUsvGW9XWCA0lzPefbW7z7js; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Dr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; Why should any stakeholder regardless of call pay a "stipend" for</P>
<P>directors whom are already overpaid to communicate with the</P>
<P>stakeholders he/she is already suppose to be serving in the first</P>
<P>place?</P>
<DIV id=compText><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jul 4, 2007 10:31 AM <BR>To: Karl Auerbach <KARL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <ROBERTO@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed? <BR><BR>
<DIV>From my perspective Karl's&nbsp;positions politically sound. In this sense I mean political theory wise. And he is politically correct, historically. However I would caution that a one and only is not necessarily safe for the insurance of political accountability. Of course I recognize in the world of Corps that a BoD is not political per se - but without exception is political in a social sense.</DIV>
<DIV>We need vast stakeholder constituencies. IDNO, TLDs, individuals and the current groupings.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>On the matter of paying a stipend for the Directors, specifically for facilitation of communication with stakeholders of the common variety would be a great idea. Perhaps even more important than sending underpriviledged to ICANN retreats.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Karl Auerbach &lt;karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Roberto Gaetano wrote:<BR><BR><BR>&gt; The problem is that if we have electors who number in the millions, which is<BR>&gt; the target, there is no way that a Director could keep the contact with his<BR>&gt; electoral body, and that the electors could debate the issues and influence<BR>&gt; the position of the Director on the Board.<BR><BR>I represented approximately 330,000,000 people. I maintained a website, <BR>published a diary (it now would be called a blog) of what I was doing, and I <BR>spent a lot of time doing email, both one-to-one, and also on lists such as <BR>this. It took a lot work, and not every email was answered, but it is quite <BR>feasible.<BR><BR>Moreover, I have long advocated that ICANN start doing something that is common <BR>elsewhere - director stipends. If ICANN were to cover up to $50,000 each year <BR>of expenses for each director, it would be possible for each director to <BR>obtain, at least on a part time basis, some resources to help with the load. <BR>Now that would have an affect on the volunteer status of directors and thus <BR>upon their legal vulnerabilities, so each director would have to decide whether <BR>to accept it or not.<BR><BR>&gt; In the 2000 elections this has left the Directors free to take any position,<BR>&gt; regardless the opinion of the electorate, who was in any way generally not<BR>&gt; consulted.<BR><BR>A director has to always keep in mind that he/she is not the representative of <BR>the people who elected him/her to office - a director's position is not a <BR>political position.<BR><BR>It does take a bit of chutzpah, not to mention some suspension of a sense of <BR>personal humility to say "I speak on behalf of 330,000,000 people." (Indeed, <BR>once before the US Senate I said "I represent more people than does the <BR>President of the United States." [The senator in question was clearly of the <BR>"wind bag" variety - his voters threw him out of office last year.] ;-)<BR><BR><BR>&gt; For this reason I think that that model is not workable. I cannot claim that<BR>&gt; the ALAC model is perfect, or even better, but it attempts to address the<BR>&gt; key issue, which in my vision of the world, is not "voting power" but<BR>&gt; "contributing power".<BR><BR>While that may be a useful mental construct, it does contain more than a small <BR>grain of paternalism. Queen Victoria of England and King Leopold of Belgium <BR>tried to justify their denial of political power to the people of their African <BR>colonies on a basis that could be considered as similar, if perhaps extremely <BR>more concentrated, than your notion that the power to say what is in the public <BR>interest is limited to those who have some special status.<BR><BR>In other words, the ability to debate and express<BR>&gt; positions is, in my opinion, more important to the ability to express a vote<BR>&gt; every three year, while nothing happens in between.<BR><BR>The power, using a US colloquial phrase, "to throw the bums out" lies at the <BR>heart of accountability. There are many of us who are very glad that in early <BR>November of next year we will be able to cast our votes to throw out our <BR>current executive officers. What you express is an idea under which one might <BR>justify the removal of my (and my fellow citizens in my country) right to vote <BR>to change our President and members of Congress.<BR><BR>Democracy does not require a direct path to vote directly on each issue - a <BR>layer of intermediate representation is acceptable. But that intermediate <BR>layer (i.e. the ICANN board of directors) must be subject to recall by the <BR>electors at the next scheduled election. Otherwise there is no accountability. <BR>And all the transparency in the world is worthless unless there is a <BR>mechanism of accountability through which the affected community - the <BR>community of internet users - can replace their representatives.<BR><BR>The ALAC, because it is structured as layer upon layer and ultimately leads to <BR>a mere nominating/appointing committee, is more of a mechanism of insulation <BR>rather than a mechanism of accountability.<BR><BR><BR>&gt; Now that the RALOs are formed, we will see if this approach works.<BR><BR>I would suggest that the ALAC be evaluated using no less stringent tests than <BR>were applied to the system of elections in year 2000.<BR><BR>And by those metrics, which are those of the number of active participants and <BR>the broadness of discourse, the ALAC long ago failed as not even coming close <BR>to the vibrancy of discourse or the scope of participation that we had in year <BR>2000.<BR><BR>&gt; Simply put, I believe that the representative democracy model suits user<BR>&gt; better than the direct democracy model, when we are talking about large<BR>&gt; numbers.<BR><BR>It seems to work OK in my state of 30,000,000 people and my country of <BR>300,000,000 people. (I'm not going to go down the tangent that might suggest <BR>that we had a failure in the US in year 2000 - occasional failures ought to be <BR>expected.)<BR><BR>I seriously doubt that the ICANN universe will ever attract even 1% of those <BR>numbers.<BR><BR>I routinely vote in corporate elections where the number of shareholders are <BR>numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not in the millions.<BR><BR>The ultimate question is this: How is ICANN to be made accountable?<BR><BR>I see no answer except to give the community of internet users the ultimate <BR>authority to select who will be given the authority, for a clearly limited <BR>period of time, to speak and make decisions on their behalf.<BR><BR>And I see the issue being one is in desperate need of an answer because of the <BR>huge damage that is being done to the collective pocketbook of internet users - <BR>as much as $400,000,000 (US) every year, due to ICANN's decisions to favor <BR>certain selected industrial interests (intellectual property collectors [as <BR>opposed to intellectual property creators], and domain name registrars) over <BR>the general body of internet users.<BR><BR>--karl--<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P></P>Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR></ZZZBODY></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY>
<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>