[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Aug 31 06:51:09 UTC 2010



On Tuesday 31 August 2010 11:26 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
>    

"Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and 
practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around a 
single straw man.


> Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
>    
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in 
response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as 
a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic 
faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if 
they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder

> On 31/08/2010, at 17:47, 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, 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>      
>>> =============================
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>         --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
>> 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



More information about the At-Large mailing list