[ncc-charter] Re: Application Attached

From: Dany Vandromme (vandrome@renater.fr)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 22:39:35 PDT

  • Next message: Adam Peake: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Application Attached"

    On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:

    > I support the application of ICANNWatch.
    > Dany, you asked for comments: here they are. Your statement is
    > literally unbelievable. You are saying that organizations that are
    > critical of ICANN should not be permitted membership in its
    > constituencies. This position is unacceptable. Dany, I don't mean to
    > sound rude, but I don't really care what your opinion of the content of
    > the ICANNwatch web site is.
    Milton, you are too sensitive about words, and that makes you react too
    I did not express my own opinion concerning the content of Icann watch,
    which is pretty useful, but I only raise the QUESTION about a possible
    conflict of interest.
    Let me take a slightly different field example. Suppose you are a
    journalist, tracking the behaviour of a political individual, like a Gore
    or Bush candidate. Then you do carefully your work as reporting and so
    on... which is certainly very useful to all people who will have to vote
    later on pro or con that candidate.
    But in that case, do you feel you should also be member of the campaign
    team (In which they are certainly also people in charge of criticising and
    not only pure pro.), with some kind of voting right?
    > You may feel that it is "not really to
    > support ICANN." I may feel otherwise. Please keep your opinions about
    > what are the right policies for ICANN to yourself, it is not a relevant
    > matter in determining membership. The purpose of the membership review
    > is to determine whether an organization meets the criteria set out in
    > the charter. Not whether you agree with their positions.
    Again, to raise question is a way to stimulate discussion. I did not
    express my own opinion doing so.
    It seems that once more, yours words are going to fast.
    If I was Milton Mueller, I would tell you that your words are offensive
    and that I want you to apologize, but I am not MM, and I consider your
    reaction just as a personal contribution to the needed debate.
    > Regarding the size of the organization, yes, ICANNWatch is an
    > established organization. It is more than just two people, it is an
    > informal community for interaction of people who are involved in ICANN.
    > Look at the content of the site and the large number of participants.
    > This is not just two guys running a web site. But that criticism would
    > apply more seriously to other organizations which I could name but will
    > not.
    Organisation would mean a minimum structure, like charter, rules,
    membership etc.
    That's not the case.
    I raised that point about the Laub family application. I was not opposed
    to the genealogical research, but I stated that it was an individual.
    If we are not critical about that, it will make no sense even to discuss
    about IDN, since anyone will become fully eligible for the NCDNHC,
    provided he maintains a web server, with some general interest content.
    > >>> Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr> 09/18/00 01:39PM >>>
    > 2) It may be some conflict of interest as follows:
    > Becoming a member of a supporting organisation would mean to support
    > ICANN. I feel that the mission or object of icannwatch, is not really to
    > support ICANN. Obviously, you can argue that pointing out everything ICANN
    > is doing differently from what you think it should do is a form of help,
    > but anyway, it would certainly not be the most productive or efficient
    > way. I would like to have more comments or feelings from you and
    > from the constituency.
    PS: I copy my answer, not the the full list, but to the charter group
    list, since these comments are linked to some part of our charter
    revision. May-be we should propose a better definition of organisation in
    the revised charter.


    Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER

                    Reseau National de Telecommunications
             pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                      | ENSAM
    Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
    Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
    E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 22:40:44 PDT