[governance] Reinstate the Vote
Jacqueline A. Morris
jam at jacquelinemorris.com
Fri Nov 23 12:10:00 EST 2007
Dear Milton
I think of myself in many ways, not purely as anything.
If you pay attention to the LAC mailing lists, I am identifying strongly
there as a Portuguese descendent and cultural Latina. In some other places,
I identify strongly with my African heritage, and in other fora as a member
of the female sex. I can continue to define myself in many other ways, but
the examples already given should be quite sufficient to indicate that the
base premise of your response is false.
And considering that I'm part Portuguese and have a lot of family in Brazil
- it would be very strange for me to consider Brazil as "other" - it would
be like considering myself "other" to myself!
Jacqueline
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:20
To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
Jacqueline:
Just a question: why do you think of yourself primarily as a member of a
"country" and not in other terms, i.e. as a particular type of Internet
user, with specific economic interests, or as part of a group, which may be
transnational, sharing certain beliefs about how the internet should be
governed?
Why do you view "Brazilians" as "the other" and therefore as someone who
will necessarily vote as a bloc "against" the Caribbean? It seems to me that
the kind of "balancing" you propose legitimates and perpetuates the very
national divisions that the Internet should be overcoming.
I am all for limits on pure majoritarianism, which is why democratic
governance mechanisms need to be tempered by "constitutional" mechanisms
that protect individual rights. But I see no reason to privilege national
identities or divisions in any global governance mechanism. If you do want
to base things on nationality, then stick with the joys of
inter-governmental institutions like the ITU, WIPO or WTO, you will get
plenty of it there ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
> Caribbean at 14 million or so will never be able to outvote Brasil alone,
> far less the rest of LA. So what's the incentive for participation in an
> election of this nature?
> What do we think about a system of proportional representation to an
> electoral college (like Danny's new NomCom) - but a big one so that even
> the smallest country (Like Barbados with 300k people) can have maybe 1
> member and thus a voice - and then have that college vote for the 5 or 9
> people that will sit on the Board?
> That seems as if it would solve the problem of size, as well as the
> problem of not having representation at all - if in a place, we have a few
> people voting in the first election, we still have a voice in the college
> with our minimum 1 position, and as internet penetration increases, and
> users get more interested and more educated, we have more weight as more
> people vote.
>
> But then, none of these people will be truly "representative" of all the
> millions and millions - so "direct representation" by voting in any way
> will never be fully "representative".
>
> So - is this even something that we should be focusing on or should we
> focus on getting people more educated and more active and participating,
> thus getting closer to an informed global user constituency and away from
> the little cliques of the cognoscenti (us) who currently "represent"? This
> informed constituency can then leverage its size into power to demand
> changes.
>
> Jacqueline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 15:37
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris
> Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; yehudakatz at mailinator.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
>
> Trying to add to the excellent comments by Jacq, I recall the crucial
> flaws in ICANN's "direct election" process of the past -- the planet
> were the "user community" lived (now that Vint is talking about the
> interplanetary Internet...) was then divided (by a high-school geography
> professor from Nowhere Bay, Arkansas, I assume) by regions -- each
> region would elect one rep.
>
> Not only the regional division was politically stupid (Mexico was part
> of the North American region, not of Latin America and the Caribbean,
> and so on -- I am sure most Mexicans who knew about this were pissed off
> knowing they would certainly always be represented by a "gringo", even
> if this "gringo" were -- and was -- our nice compa Karl Auerbach), but
> also the electoral system would allow for the perpetuation of certain
> countries' reps in power.
>
> There were no rotation provisions, no parameters to balance a 190M
> people country like Brazil with a 1M people country like Trinidad and
> Tobago. Fine, all are Internet users (after we take a huge dosis of
> naïveté medicine), but in the regional division, the Brazilian rep, in
> the absence of balancing and rotation provisions, would always win in
> its region. Mexico or Canada would never win in their region, and so on.
> BTW, in protest, at the time I voted for the Uruguayan candidate. Is it
> too naïve to believe in this context that any elected regional rep will
> be representing the region's interest in an impartial manner, not the
> interests who pushed in her/his favor? It is, unfortunately.
>
> And, above all, the set of five elected were a nearly 1/4 minority in
> the board, giving them at best (if they could build consensus among them
> around crucial issues) an advisory or minority vote nature. At the time,
> ICANN was in the end seeking cosmetic legitimacy disguised as universal
> user representation.
>
> Andrew McLaughlin (now Google's Über lawyer) coordinated that electoral
> process (at the time he defended it of course), and certainly could give
> us a good critical (I hope!) view of it.
>
> We enter into a territory of tremendous complexity when we want to
> establish representation of the "user community" -- this is too big, too
> diversified, and at the end too UNrepresentative precisely because of
> its generic, diverse, multisectoral, multicultural, multi-etc nature.
> And, most importantly, traversed by all interest groups (the user as a
> rep is actually a rep of his/her interest group etc etc).
>
> So, reinstate the vote for whom, for what, with what expected legitimacy
> and true representation??? It is the real world (you know, the planet?)
> we are talking about... What structures of representation could we think
> of instead of repeating the disaster of the past?
>
> --c.a.
>
> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
> > Hi Milton
> > I believe that direct voting by individual internet users will continue
> to
> > skew towards specialist and tech-savvy people in developed countries who
> > have consistent and adequate internet access, access to information
> about
> > the vote etc. The ALS model works to get information to and from users
> who
> > are affected by, but not motivated or know enough or are connected
> enough to
> > find out that there's a vote, where and how to vote, etc.
> >
> > There are ALSes that send people out to remote rural villages that do
> use
> > the Internet (slow access, email only sometimes) but these users do not
> > spend their time following these processes. These ALS members have a
> > consultation - explain the issues, discuss how they will affect those
> users,
> > and return with information on how those users see specific issues.
> >
> > That's the educational and outreach value of the ALS structure. Since
> the
> > Caribbean ALSes have formed, there's all sorts of projects that I've
> seen to
> > educate and inform the internet-using public about governance and
> technical
> > issues - in schools, radio programmes, etc. I have been informed that
> this
> > is not just in the Caribbean either... so there's value in the ALS model
> > that is not there in "direct representation"
> >
> > But if there were to be another "global election"...
> >
> > What can you suggest to make sure that a global vote catches as many
> people
> > as possible in the net? What's the minimum acceptable participation? Of
> 1
> > billion, what % would count as a representative global election? Can we
> do
> > this properly without IDN implementation? As that might discriminate
> against
> > non-ascii script users? How many languages should the ballot be in? How
> > should the information be disseminated to make sure that EVERY user
> knows
> > about the vote and the issues?
> >
> > It might make sense in the future when we're all connected from birth,
> but
> > right now, any election would not be truly 'global"
> >
> > jacqueline
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:19
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
> >
> > Yehuda:
> > It is good to see your support for this very simple and basic form of
> > accountability, which ICANN abandoned in 2000 after the party slate lost
> the
> > election in the US and Europe.
> >
> > This form of public input is far more meaningful than the ALAC, which
> > requires people to invest hundreds of hours creating and maintaining
> > organizations which is simply not economically viable given the small
> stakes
> > individual internet users have in domain name issues.
> >
> > To support democracy in ICANN about all you can do now is:
> > * provide input to ICANN's At Large AC review process, which will be
> > starting soon
> > * Make comments in the US Government's February proceeding
> > * if you have lots of time to wast^^ spare, get involved in ICANN at
> large
> > itself and advocate that position.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: [governance] Reinstate the Vote
> >>
> >> To:
> >> Mr. Kieren McCarthy
> >> General Manager of Public Participation
> >>
> >> Ok Kieren lets work together,
> >>
> >> I would like the Voting mechanism reinstated,
> >> which that was taken away shortly after the Elections in October of
> 2000
> >> Ref.: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21sep00.htm
> >>
> >> Please layout the path for us to accomplish this.
> >> (walk me through it)
> >> Which Icann list(s) need posting to?,
> >> Who should we contact directly?
> >> and How should we best approach the subject matter?
> >> (provide us some suggested text)
> >>
> >> Thnx
> >> y
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date:
> >> 11/19/2007 12:35 PM
> >>
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date:
> 11/19/2007
> > 12:35 PM
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1140 - Release Date:
> 11/19/2007
> > 19:05
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date:
> 11/21/2007
> > 16:28
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date:
> 11/21/2007 16:28
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date:
> 11/21/2007 16:28
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date:
> 11/23/2007 9:19 AM
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007
9:19 AM
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007
09:19
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 11/23/2007
09:19
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list