Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)
- To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:04:16 -0700
- Cc: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxx, Jeff Holt <jefftttt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <000c01c36ec1$732a4780$4d58fc3e@r6yll>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Richard and all former DNSO GA members,
Agreed! Too bad Jefsey did not and does not practice what he
preaches as is evident with respect to ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
Pot - Kettle, Black.... Next?
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Jefsey's comments are first-class and well-balanced.
> A top-down structure, without democratic representation, and based on
> 'nominations' and 'appointments' is by no means as reliable as the group
> organising bottom-up at Icann At Large.
> Moreover there is a thousandfold more participation in the mailig list
> discussions at icannatlarge, compared to the virtually uninhabited mailing
> list at ALAC.
> There is also Jefsey's other point, that when you do speak up to ICANN on a
> relevant issue, you can expect to get ignored (as Jefsey was) so you have to
> question whether you're just supporting a facade run for ICANN's own
> benefit. On a number of issues and policies, the ICANN Board has simply
> ignored consensus positions. Moreover, it is infamously unresponsive when
> challenged on awkward issues (take, for example, Dan Halloran's abject
> failure to even acknowledge my serious, demonstrated concerns of registrar
> abuse on New TLDs... 500 days later, he still hasn't even had the courtesy
> to reply... so you have to ask, what was my effort for?)
> Similarly, when ICANN set up the ALSC to propose ways of developing the At
> Large, it did not like the outcome, so it the recommendations were ignored.
> Fortunately, the 'legacy' At Large is moving forward with its
> self-organisation and there are always busy mailing lists, discussing issues
> of governance. But this lively participation has absolutely *nothing* to do
> with ALAC's organisation.
> I agree with Jefsey, that the Icann At Large organisation is a highly
> significant At Large entity, capable of offering an alternative to ALAC,
> which should prove much more attractive to ordinary individual users.
> ALAC is ICANN's initiative.
> But it was ICANN who expelled the At Large from their Board Romm, wasn't it?
> Richard Henderson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxx>
> > Dear Steven,
> > everyone is "involved" in or by ALAC and icannatlarge.org. Our concern is
> > to be "involved" in the most efficient manner. The way I read the things
> > that a small kernel of advisors wants to inform ICANN on what the atlarge
> > may think and therefore ask them to speak up. Only the most vocable will
> > it - if they think it of use. For example I did on UDRP and was not even
> > acknowledged.
> > Now, a substantial number of these @large are members of the
> > icannatlarge.org organization which prefers to organize a two level
> > questionning : collect matter for question (as does the ALAC) form the
> > vocable (or Workiong Groups) and to ask everyone their opinion.
> > One can only say that the ALAC method may include opinions from people who
> > are not members of icannatlarge.org and that these opinions are not
> > validated as the opinion of any @large group.
> > This does not mean they or of no interest. But they do not match the
> > of ALAC. On the other hand, should the more complex icannatlarge.org
> > come to fruition, its positions will be the positions of a significant
> > @large group, but will probably not be accepted as such by ICANN.
> > jfc
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801