[ALSC-Forum] Calhoun's "Concurrent Majority" [2] -- Should an ICANN Constituency Be Able to Veto ICANN Policy?

[Alphageek]

At Esther Dyson's suggestion, I am forwarding the folowing remarks and some
others to the At Large Forum.

]> -----Original Message-----
]> From: Eric C. Grimm [mailto:ericgrimm@mediaone.net]
]> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 6:40 PM
]> To: gcln@gcln.net
]> Subject: RE: GCLN: US control of the Internet?
]>
]>
]>
]> Esther Dyson says:
]> ]>
]> ]> It would depend who the At-Large Members are and how they get their
]> ]> information (surely it should not all come from ICANN itself!).....
]> ]>
]>
]> I know of very few, if any, people whose information stream
]> flows exclusively from ICANN.  Certainly, we should seek to have
]> a selection process that favors autodidacts with enough
]> initiative to seek out information on their own.  I probably
]> should know this already, but what is your position on this
]> selection process, and how does the proposal for an At-Large
]> veto on ICANN policy "depend" on the selection process?
]>
]> I don't quite understand what you are saying without more specifics.
]>
]> ]> That is one of the big issues,,,, since (for a long time) the
]> At-Large
]> ]> Members will be only a fraction of the total number of users of the
]> ]> Internet.  Note that most of them are not in the US and many of
]>
]> So, are you arguing in favor of some kind of sliding
]> proportional representation based on levels of usership?  Should
]> that be measured in terms of eyeballs or eyeball-hours?  Some other way?
]>
]> Or are your proposing something else entirely?
]>
]> ]> them do not
]> ]> come from "democratic" countries, whatever that means.  Who will
]> ]> be  telling them (how) to vote? Who will be encouraging them to
]>
]> And what if Microsoft tells its employees how to vote?  Is there
]> any evidence that these hypotheticals actually present a problem
]> at persent?  I agree that mechanisms, if avaialble, to minimize
]> vote-tampering, involuntary voting, and vote-rigging, should be
]> minimized.  Then again, if the alternative is an ICANN
]> organization as unrepresentative as ICANN presently is, which is
]> the lesser of two evils?  Personally, I'd be willing to risk the
]> Devil-I-Don't-Know.
]>
]> ]> register as
]> ]> At-Large Members in the first place?  Will it be AOL with a big
]> ]> membership
]> ]> push? The Chinese government? The Polish PTT? Lee Kuan Yew?
]> An American
]> ]> anti-porn crusade? ("let's clean up the Net once and for all!")
]> ]>
]>
]> Should there be any rule prohibiting membership drives by any of
]> these entities?  If so, why?  Because we don't like their politics?
]>
]> At the same time, I don't like the politics of WIPO or INTA or
]> Verisign.  But they seem to have some rather extraordinary
]> influence over the direction of ICANN.
]>
]> ]> These are some of the questions we are thinking about.
]> ]>
]> ]> PS - if you really want to engage on this issue, please write to
]> ]> <forum@atlargestudy.org>.
]> ]>
]>
]> Feel free to forward my remarks.  Is there an archive of
]> messages so I can see what is being discussed?  The last thing I
]> need is another project.
]>
]> Maybe if I ever become an academic, I'll have the leasure to
]> think avbout these big-picture issues with the leisure they
]> require.  But right now I'm knee-deep in the trenches trying to
]> deal with the practical consequences of the errors already made
]> by Congress and ICANN.  From my vantage point down here in the
]> trenches, ICANN = FUBAR.
]>
]> ECG