[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Thu Jul 30 11:48:58 UTC 2015


When considering anyone's intervention one always must try to
ascertain what the individual wants to achieve, in addition to the
method(s) used.

Nothing but tactics.

Though Americans often think that the "It's nothing personal, just
business" excuses anything.

I am quite partial to ad-hominem myself as is well known, and hence
can rarely complain being on the receiving end :-)-O.

It's also perfectly acceptable to bear a grudge, and Belzegreg has
joined the likes of Antonius Lubricius long ago.


On 2015-07-30 11:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> In reading Greg's post I can't help but have some regret that I
> responded negatively to the post of a GAC member a few weeks ago
> suggesting that ICANN has a role in controlling cyber bullying.
> I continue to be disturbed by Mr.  Shatan's continuing propensity
> to question the motives and good faith of others.  That, as
> Professor David Weil taught me at Cambridge, this reflects more on
> the individual making the attack than on that being attacked is
> small comfort.  I recognize that the representative of
> intellectual property interests might have some difficulty in
> understanding some may come to this process with no goal other
> than to contribute to try to make the world a better place,
> without any economic interest whatsoever.  Sad.
> One may disagree with my views but they are held honestly.  As a
> citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and a long time peace
> activist, I can not countenance any voting scheme that gives even
> the slightest potential voting power to the American military.
> This is an honest belief, not as alleged by Mr.  Shatan, part of a
> scheme to delay things.  The US military, via RSSAC, in an
> advisory role and the U.S. Military, via RSSAC, as an entity with
> voting rights are two different things.  That as an American he
> may have a different perspective is understandable.
> I don't play games.  As a human rights activist with degrees in
> the field from several institutions and extensive work experience
> in the field I am deeply disturbed by any scheme that gives any
> entity multiple voting rights.  I advocate for a fair time frame
> for minority views not because of any "friends", as Mr.  Shatan
> has alleged, but because of a strong belief in due process and the
> protection of the rights of those whose views may be outside the
> mainstream.  These are honestly held beliefs and I resent claims
> by the Chair of the IPC to the contrary.  To the Chairs of the
> CCWG regarding minority reports: please look at the ICM IRP
> decision imputing to ICANN due process obligations via the
> international law provision in our bylaws.  Consider the
> Ombudsman's opinion.  If you ignore both...well, I hope you don't.
> I now need to commence my 12 hour work day.  Good luck with the
> calls.  I will conclude by noting that the politics of personal
> attack is a very American thing.  We obviously have a long way to
> go in internationalizing many aspects of ICANN.
> Ed
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list