Re: [ga] RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires Representation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, Vint, and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

   The number of potential interested stakeholders/users should not
matter.  The more that show and want to show and participate
at whatever level or in whatever way should be available to any
and all willing to openly participate as such.  Hence Vints seeming
concern is not only moot, but both concerning in and of itself, and
seemingly desirous of limiting or restricting open and transparent
participation.  Such a notion, is non sequiter at best, and
discriminatory
at worst.

Danny Younger wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> In my time as an ICANN participant I have taken note
> of the degree of participation within three
> organizations:  the DNSO GA, the IDNO, and
> icannatlarge.  Each of these groups attained mailing
> list numbers that only mildly exceeded 1000
> participants.  When I compare this activity to that
> found within the ISPs, the BC, the NCUC and the IP, I
> am proud to see a much higher degree of involvement
> (even the registrars don't get more than two or three
> dozen entities participating in a vote).
>
> We both know that a constituent body may be launched
> with a great amount of fanfare and that initial
> signatories to such an effort may be many, but
> certainly it will not be an unmanagable number -- as
> recent organizational history has shown -- and over
> the course of time those numbers invariably will drop.
>
> I am suggesting that the Board allows for the
> formation of a new constituency -- an At-Large
> Assembly.  Member management would become the
> responsibility of the constituency, not ICANN, so the
> ICANN concern over a possible 80,000 new voices
> becomes a moot point.
>
> Thanks for sharing your concerns.
>
> Danny
>
> --- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > So one interesting question is how to do this while
> > not ending up with the
> > 80,000 suddenly interested parties that appeared
> > when we tried a global
> > election?
> >
> > V
> >
> >
> >
> > Vinton G Cerf
> > Chief Internet Evangelist
> > Google/Regus
> > Suite 384
> > 13800 Coppermine Road
> > Herndon, VA 20171
> >
> > +1 703 234-1823
> > +1 703-234-5822 (f)
> >
> > vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > www.google.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:45 AM
> > To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large
> > Requires Representation
> >
> > Vint,
> >
> > I share your view that a very small fraction of the
> > billion or so reported
> > Internet users actually want to provide input.  By
> > the same token only a
> > small fraction of trademark holders, businesses and
> > non-commercial entities
> > seek to provide input, yet we do afford these
> > constituent groups with an
> > opportunity for representation within the ICANN
> > process.  The At-Large,
> > however, is a constituent part of the whole that has
> > been recently relegated
> > to the sidelines.  We are asking for the opportunity
> > to function just like
> > any other constituent body -- with a venue to
> > conduct discussion and debate,
> > and with the opportunity to have a representative
> > structure that conveys
> > consensus (or the lack thereof) to the Board on
> > issues pertaining to the
> > DNS.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Danny
> >
> > --- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > > Setting aside the question of success or failure,
> > is there a proposal
> > > for any alternative structure for user involvement
> > in ICANN? My honest
> > > sense is that a very small fraction of the billion
> > or so reported
> > > Internet users actually want to provide input. Do
> > you see this
> > > differently?  I forwarded your message, verbatim,
> > to the board.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vinton G Cerf
> > > Chief Internet Evangelist
> > > Google/Regus
> > > Suite 384
> > > 13800 Coppermine Road
> > > Herndon, VA 20171
> > >
> > > +1 703 234-1823
> > > +1 703-234-5822 (f)
> > >
> > > vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > www.google.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Danny Younger
> > [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:29 AM
> > > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large
> > Requires
> > > Representation
> > >
> > > Dear Vint, members of the ICANN Board, and members
> > of the At-Large
> > > community:
> > >
> > > Karl Auerbach writes in his blog:
> > >
> > > "ICANN once had a vibrant public sector.  But that
> > period ended
> > > several years ago when meaningful public
> > participation in ICANN was
> > > eliminated during a process that ICANN, in its
> > best NewSpeak, called
> > > "reform.
> > >
> > > Today ICANN's palace eunuch, the "interim" ALAC
> > sent forth it latest
> > > missive.  It is a pathetic document devoid of
> > content yet filled with
> > > phrases of submission and dependency.
> > >
> > > ICANN's purpose is to serve the public, the
> > community of internet
> > > users.
> > > Yet ICANN's ALAC, and much less ICANN itself,
> > remembers ICANN's
> > > purpose and ICANN's promises.
> > >
> > > ICANN's ALAC was crippled at at its conception.
> > We of the community
> > > of internet users have patiently stood aside
> > hoping that perhaps we
> > > would be proved wrong and that the ALAC might
> > actually grow into
> > > something of value.
> > > During this time ICANN plied the ALAC with money
> > and staff support.
> > > Attempts were made to froth-up up membership; but
> > few signed on.
> > >
> > > The ALAC was given a fair chance to succeed.  But
> > it has not done so.
> > >
> > > It is time to write off ICANN's ALAC as the
> > failure it is."
> > >
> > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000197.html
> > >
> > > I agree completely with Karl.  The ALAC has
> > functioned as the steward
> > > of a process that replaced At-Large
> > "representation" with the promise
> > > of enhanced "participation".  Yet during the
> > course of the last three
> > > years, not even one comment on any topic
> > whatsoever has ever been
> > > forwarded by any "certified At-Large Structure
> > (ALS)" to the ICANN
> > > Board for review.
> > >
> > > By now it should be clear to all that the At-Large
> > has routed around
> > > the ALAC having long recognized that it fails to
> > act in our best
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > The At-Large requires a better home within ICANN
> > where our views may
> > > be properly debated and then forwarded to the
> > Board through elected
> > > representatives.
> > >
> > > Please consider this correspondence as a
> > "bottom-up"
> > > request to change the bylaws.  We have waited long
> > enough.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Danny Younger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827