[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Karl Auerbach]

Veni Markovski wrote:

> Nobody elected could claim they represent the 330 M or the 250 M, or
> the 2 B people. Andy was a German choice, as Karl was the US one (and
> US at this time was less than 300 M altogether).

Oh?  If those of us who were elected by the community of internet users 
were not representative, then that can only mean that those who have 
come to ICANN though its non-elective methods are far less representative.

I was elected in an open election that included voters from several 
countries.  Yes, the US was the largest.  However, voters in in Canada - 
or even Bermuda or Greenland - could have changed the outcome.

I was, in fact, the properly elected representative of 330,000,000 people.

Andy was the properly elected representative of the European area.

We were as legitimate in our representational role as any of the five 
who came to the board via the election.

And we were a whole lot more representative than any other directors, 
past of present, who received their seats by processes more akin to 
oligarchic selection than democratic election.

Moreover, because we came to office via a path in which internet users 
could actually make a choice, the legitimacy of our representative role 
was much more valid than ICANN's ALAC system of committees upon 
committees upon committees - a system that most closely resembles the 
"democratic" system used in the old USSR.

And we did not lose our seats due to any choice of the electorate.  Our 
seats were simply erased.

> Certainly the East Europeans were unhappy with the outcome, but also
> certainly, if there are elections again, they most probably will have
> the same result. One could go via the board list and see if people
> from countried like Bulgaria, Kenya, Senegal, Chilie, etc. would ever
> make it to that level.

I have a hard time giving much credit to the assertion that "people will 
vote their nationality".  People are not sheep and they will find 
communities of interest that cross national boundaries.

The logical result of the path you are describing is simply to create 
bodies of internet governance in which the sole and exclusive members 
are national governments.

> We are constantly reminded that Karl was having problems with that
> early ICANN, and he spent lots of time fighting to get access to
> documents. But many forget that ICANN today is different from ICANN
> yesterday.

Not really.  ICANN still is incredibly secretive, the board asks no 
questions and is largely a marionette whose strings are pulled by 
"staff", by Verisign, and by intellectual property interests.  And ICANN 
is indeed much worse in that no longer has *any* directors elected by 
the community of internet users.

In other words, all the discussion about proportional representation 
based on community size and degrees of representation - all of that is 
irrelevant to ICANN because it simply and clearly has ejected the 
community of internet users, forced them into subordinate status, and 
lets them watch internet governance while others, more privileged 
industrial groups, get to gorge themselves at ICANN's increasingly rich 
table.

And the private tax that ICANN imposes onto the internet - a tax that is 
now more than $500,000,000(US) every year (as measured by excessive 
registry fees) - is much larger today than it was in 2003 when I left 
the board.

And you assert that this makes ICANN more democratic, more open, 
transparent, and accountable?  How?

		--karl--

____________________________________________________________
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