[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Aug 31 13:41:30 UTC 2010
"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."
This is impatient of debate and yes, I absolutely agree with you!
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:47 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> > Karl:
> > 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,
> > 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
> > time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
> > Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as
> > of the deserving public then.
> > I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of
> > Kind regards.
> > Carlton
> Hi Carlton,
> 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>
> >> On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>> On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com>
> >>> - 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.
> >> --karl--
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > 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