[At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future

Vanda Scartezini vanda at uol.com.br
Thu Apr 6 13:48:28 UTC 2017

Despite de fact the directors are good elements, countries like Brazil obviously due its population will always win despite how better other latin American and Caribbean candidates could be. 
Balancing representation is not perfect but the best system human had invented so far.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 
HAPPY 2017!

On 2/6/17, 7:12 PM, "Karl Auerbach" <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

    On 2/5/17 1:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
    I want to take strong issue with certain words:
    > ... the Review asks for a return to an
    > unstable, free for all, system based only on individual members speaking
    > for themselves only, a system that was shown to fail miserably as it
    > generates conflict with no safeguards whatsoever and favours those with
    > a bigger mouth than anyone else. The ICANN version 1 experiment failed
    > noticeably in the early 2000s, with ballot stuffing in wide practice and
    > mailing lists that were filled with flame wars fuelled by socio-paths.
    I have a rather different point of view.
    I see the year 2000 elections as having been very successful (despite me 
    winning the North American seat.  ;-)
    These were not unstable processes, they were not a free for all.
    And yes, individual members did speak for themselves.  What is wrong 
    with that?  Is it worse than the present ICANN system in which many 
    people get amplified power by acting under the guise of multiple 
    stakeholder roles?
    Did it fail miserably?  To the contrary.  In the main I would say that 
    the directors who filled those five seats were among the best that ICANN 
    has ever had.
    Was there conflict?  Yes.  But may I suggest that the better word is 
    "debate'.  Electronic debate is, unfortunately, a world in which 
    etiquette an softness of expression has been lost.  I, too, regret that 
    loss. My cures for that are tri-fold: more face-to-face contact (it's 
    hard to be as rude to a person one has met), tolerance of poorly formed 
    expressions from others, and more care to speak only as strong as is 
    necessary in order to make sure that an intended point is made.  This 
    issue is amplified by cultural differences - we Americans, for example, 
    tend to speak more strongly and directly than do others from cultures 
    that put greater weight on indirect expression.
    "ballot stuffing"?  I think you are referring to the fact that in some 
    of the regions corporate and national actors tried to induce employees 
    to vote in certain ways.  Perhaps that happened, but that might be 
    called "persuasion" rather than "ballot stuffing".  And that was 
    certainly not what happened in the North America region - indeed in N. 
    America the intellectual property industry candidate did rather poorly.  
    And the remedy for fears of excessive persuasion have historically been 
    to increase voter privacy and anonymity, not erasing the use of elections.
    Were there "safeguards"?  Of course there were.  At the end of the 
    debate ICANN's board voted and decisions were made.  That is a rather 
    significant "safeguard".
    I do not know what you were meaning to say about those with "bigger 
    mouth".  There certainly were loud moths during that era - no less than 
    today.  And they were richly favored.  But those mouths and favored 
    recipients were not those who participated in the individual election 
    process.  (I think we all can draw up lists of those who profited over 
    the years through ICANN - and I'd be surprised if any of our lists 
    included loud voices among the individual voters of year 2000.)
    Discussion was not among socio-paths.  I do admit we do have people, 
    then and now, who argue their points with excessive personal abuse. 
    There were one or two people who we came to understand were a bit off 
    kilter - the famous Jeff Williams for example (however, I spoke to him 
    on the phone several times and in that mode he was actually somewhat 
    rational.  ;-)   However, his presence, and the presence of others like 
    him, is just part of our world, not an aspect of a system of decision 
    making based on individuals casting votes.
    On the other hand discussion then was among a larger number of people 
    than those who participate today.   It seems also that more of the 
    meetings then were face-to-face.  And in my region there was a 
    continuous dialog - online, telephone, email, and physical meeting - 
    between our regions director (me) and the community.  In my own case I 
    made sure to keep the channels open in both ways by maintaining an open 
    diary of my ICANN decisions (which is still on-line.)
    There were some difficulties during the year 2000 election, particularly 
    in the voter registration system.  Those difficulties were enhanced by 
    ICANN through ineptness, and perhaps more.  Those difficulties would 
    have been easily cured had the process not been cast aside and never 
    allowed to continue.
    I do not understand the persistence of the hysterical faux, almost 
    defamatory, characterizations of the year 2000 ICANN election and the 
    acts of those who held the directors' seats as a result.
    I, speaking as an individual - strongly believe that ICANN should return 
    to a system based in the individual franchise.  I strongly believe that 
    ICANN should return to the original promise that a majority of director 
    seats would be filled by the public.
    I do not see the ALAC system as a success.  The ALAC system has had 
    nearly 15 years to grow.  Yet even with funding from ICANN and the 
    support of about eight full-time ICANN staff, the ALAC has not yet 
    reached the vibrancy or size that the open electoral system reached in 
    year 2000 in a couple of months.  And I perceive that because of the 
    ALACs near-byzantine complexity that its power has been reduced to a 
    degree that it has no prime-mover role in the making of of ICANN policy; 
    that the ALAC has been reduced to a role in which it sits by as the 
    house is designed by others and is left to comment on minor matters such 
    as whether the paint color on the trim is to be robin's egg blue or sky 
    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 mailing list