Ok, Gordon I'm here.
But I'm not sure what you want from me.
I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do
with the MAC recommendations.
Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended.
I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks
(something I am getting used to).
I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in
his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the
telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there.
In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I
don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct
democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And
remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves
chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what
they feel is right. Boring, but that's life.
Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN
BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting
them outright.
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> And in typically ICANN like cowardly fashion those who designed the
> travesity that you critique so well refuse to stand up and say it is I who
> did this and here is why. One can guess it is R oberts or Sims. Too bad
> they so far lack the guts to say so and to answer your critique. Their
> silence can only confirm one's suspicion that these people are up to no
> good and that Esther and the Board are witting collaborators.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from Dan Steinberg whether this bears much
> resemblance to what the memebreship committee recommended.
>
> >Comments on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committeee Recommendations
> >of March 18th, 1999, Pertaining to The Formation and Function of the
> >ICANN At-large Membership
> >
> >First, it must be said that these most recent recommendations of the
> >M.A.C. seem to ignore entirely not only the lengthy discussions that
> >have taken place on the ICANN membership mailing list but the
> >extremely well thought out and well exposed models proposed by
> >Mssrs. Teernstra, Heckendorn, Fishkin, and Lowenhaupt, which appear
> >at the ICANN website (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/mac/bbtop.htm).
> >We do not understand why such hard and fruitful work on the part of
> >conscientious persons deeply concerned with this process and its
> >successful outcome has been thrown aside. Is the ICANN Board, and
> >the MAC itself, unwilling to take the trouble to comprehend,
> >assimilate, and synthesize these proposals? If so, they should
> >dissociate themselves from the complex questions involved in the
> >formation and function of the ICANN At-Large membership and make
> >room for those willing and able to do the work, of which there
> >appear to be not a few.
> >
> >This said, we offer a brief critique of the MAC's recommendations as
> >expressed in the Summary of the MAC Conference Call
> >(http://www.icann.org/mac-mar18.html), which, due to the shallow
> >thinking they reflect and their obvious lack of appreciation of the
> >objective reality that would ensue from their adoption, hardly merit
> >even the little space we give them here.
> >
> >1. Any individual or organisation may be an AL member. Only
> >ORGANISATIONS that are members of a SO are excluded.
> >
> >Comment: No criteria whatsoever for membership is a clear invitation
> >to persons with no real interest in the Internet, but who seek to
> >use a newly created organization to further their political
> >ambitions, to join and manipulate their standing as members for
> >their own purposes. As Joop Teernstra has so well pointed out in his
> >proposal, an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >clearly has a primary if not unique responsibility towards those who
> >possess or make use of Internet names and numbers, and it is these
> >who should be its members. As to excluding from the At-Large
> >membership organizations that are members of the SOs, that is not
> >only impossible to control, since organizations are after all only
> >collectives of their individual members, but undesirable since the
> >organizations that belong to the SOs, as well as the individuals who
> >are members of them, need a forum for collective deliberation, and
> >that, by all reason, should be the At-Large membership.
> >
> >2. Members must apply by sending an on-line registration form
> >provided by ICANN, giving an e-mail address and other minimal
> >identification details, which ICANN will only attempt to verify if a
> >complaint is lodged.
> >
> >This is merely a convenience for the ICANN Board; but, like the
> >recommendation above, it invites the worst abuses. Who is to know if
> >the persons applying even exist, or if any of their information is
> >correct? Surely, minimal authentication, easily provided by postal
> >service mail-back, must be required in order to substantiate the
> >existence of the applicants.
> >
> >3. Members must re-register annually. Changes to registered
> >details, particularly e-mail address, must be advised on pain of
> >loss of membership.
> >
> >What is the point to this if there is no hard-copy authentication of
> >members' existence? It only invites further abuses, such as the
> >creation of unlimited false identities on a regular basis, or in the
> >event of an important vote.
> >
> >4. There will be no membership fee. (We consider this to be too
> >difficult to set equitably, and costly to collect.
> >
> >This is preposterous on the face of it. No membership fee to belong
> >to, and vote for the directors of, the international organization
> >controlling the technological and sociological development of the
> >Internet, the most economically and socially potent tool for
> >communication yet invented by man? Why? So that the present Board
> >need not go to the trouble of thinking of a way of collecting dues,
> >something that is accomplished by every other organization without
> >great difficulty? And with what consequences? That persons may join
> >and vote, not only without having to substantiate their identity but
> >without being asked to make any a priori personal contribution
> >whatsoever? And how is ICANN to support itself? Through the funding
> >of special-interest groups, invariably those with the biggest
> >purses, and who will manipulate and control ICANN in proportion to
> >the amount of financial responsibility they provide for its
> >functioning? Is this what is meant by responsibility and
> >responsiveness to the community, as expressed in the White Paper and
> >ICANN's own bylaws?
> >
> >6. Members form a single world wide constituency to elect AL
> >directors.
> >
> >A nice sentiment. However, it remains to be seen if it has any
> >inherent significance, in light of the other, more pragmatic,
> >measures that may make its realization impossible.
> >
> >9. There is no limit to the number of candidates at any election.
> >
> >Shall all members be candidates, then? And voters as well? Every
> >person in the world, regardless of their character, relation to the
> >Internet, or willingness and ability to participate conscientiously
> >in its functioning, may be both a member of ICANN and a candidate to
> >its board of directors? This is to turn democracy on its head. As
> >always in such undefined situations, those who wish to control and
> >manipulate will find it easy to do so, since there will be no
> >structure impeding them from imposing their own. He who organizes
> >controls, as is well known.
> >
> >10. We see no need for a nomination committee, or for an electoral
> >committee. These are tasks for the ICANN executive.
> >
> >And who is this executive? Is it not persons who must be empowered
> >by the membership, which at first is not yet formed? In the chaotic
> >and anarchic membership situation created by the foregoing
> >principles, any two or more persons masquerading as the interim
> >executive will have no trouble at all in manipulating the
> >candidature and election of the At-large directors. There must be
> >committees; as many as there are tasks to be performed; in order
> >that the power to control events be distributed and therefore
> >limited. The constant pretence that organization can be avoided will
> >per force result in an undesirable organization. Just as nature
> >abhors a vacuum, so human organizations abhor undefined
> >responsibilities, which are invariably assumed by those interested
> >in using the power that comes with them for their own ends.
> >
> >Our comments end here at the last recommendation. As stated earlier,
> >the comments given here are poor because their subject is poor. We
> >remain amazed that such poverty of thought could result from such
> >richness of initiative on the part of so many. And again, we say
> >that those who have reduced the rich suggestions offered in good
> >faith by the potential members of ICANN to such poor recommendations
> >stand aside to let those willing and able to provide ICANN with a
> >better foundation for its future take their place.
> >
> >Michael Sondow
> >
> >============================================================
> >International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU)
> > http://www.iciiu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >============================================================
>
> ********************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> ********************************************************************
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
