Dany,
Whatever one might think about ICANNWatch or any other application, I think
it's too late to add anything to the charter. Let's just get on with the
election, we need the Charter for that.
Thanks,
Adam
(and my email seems to be back to normal, but last week was a mess!)
>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
>quickly.
>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.
>
>Comments?
>-
>>
>>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 - 22:58:51 PDT