[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Aug 31 05:47:49 UTC 2010
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your
> assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there
> would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right.
> Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for
> better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its
> word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the
> issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work.
> I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what
> "public" means.
> You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a
> time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
> Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part
> of the deserving public then.
> I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire.
> Kind regards.
Now that you mention issues of exclusion and inclusion, let me say, the
real edges of the 'empire' is still nowhere close to being covered/
included, as a legitimate/ deserving 'public', for the public policies
that ICANN plus makes.
Yes, the (somewhat upper) middle classes in developing countries, (their
interests, and those representing their interests) may be slowing
creeping in across the edges, but not the marginalized sections, who are
still the large majority in developing countries. Unfortunately,
whether we like it or not, these sections are simply not in a position
to engage directly with and represent themselves through the various
online platforms that ICANN's participative model largely consists of.
They just have to be represented - however under-optimally - by
organized groups and organizations that purport to represent their
interests. ICANN is nowhere close to engaging with these groups/
organizations, in any fruitful manner.
Empowered individuals who can successfully navigate the difficult online
space, with multiple technical and social exclusions, are still what
constitutes ICANN's 'public' wherefrom it seeks the basis of its
legitimacy. The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and
multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who
engage with it began to understand. That would be basic to obtaining the
degree of legitimacy that ICANN seeks, and finds often refused by what I
think is the majority of people.
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach<karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>> On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>> On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>> - Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's
>>> active support.
>> I very much disagree.
>> If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then
>> there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that
>> happen in year 2000.
>> And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN
>> that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's
>> because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made
>> sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized,
>> over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
>> Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from
>> slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I
>> guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many
>> orders of decimal magnitude.
>> ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to
>> debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large