Re: [ga] At-Large membership: definition

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

And he shall not know thy word nor speaketh it and it shall be known as the great : "I am" And I shall be Buddha and i Muhammed and i shall be the one with no domain name.but call me Hindu or that without flesh. And in the high deserts know me as wind and in the low know me as water. And in the dark know me as light. and in the light know me as dark. And when the is hungry know me as food.
   
  Lest thy own forget. I speak of a domain name. What silliness and pretense we give it.
  My favorite name is "hey dude" and even the best is "Dad" both i answer to. "honey" will make me respond everytime.
   
  At large -- makes me fat. My Viet wife and my 16 year old daughter laugh at --At Large.  "what dad are you in a weight class?" - which means phat pharm i think.but to me it means wrestling - and not with a girl.  oh heck ya'll foller it. 
   
  At large sounds like people who cannot pu pu. A colostomy seminar. Disgusting. yuckee, and count me out. (sorry mom).
   
  Dr. e
   
  

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Okay, include me Vittorio. I'd like to be a member and according to your
post I qualify. When can I start?

Chris McElroy, President, Kidsearch Network
Constituency, Parents of Missing Children who are all individual users as
well.
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org

PS: Vittorio, that has got to be the lamest explanation I've ever seen for
catering to the lawyers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vittorio Bertola" 
To: "Danny Younger" 
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large membership: definition


> Danny Younger ha scritto:
> > Vittorio,
> >
> > I refer you to the Membership Advisory Committee
> > Commentary on the Principles of the At-large
> > Membership:
> >
> > 1. At-large membership should primarily represent
> > those individuals and organizations that are not
> > represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs).
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/macberlin.html
> >
> > In view of this definition (arrived at by consensus
> > through the ICANN process), can you explain to me on
> > what basis the ALAC certified the Intellectual
> > Property & Technology (IPT) Section of the Hawaii
> > State Bar Association as an at-large structure?
> >
> > Intellectual property lawyers are already represented
> > within the GNSO. They have a constituency called the
> > Intellectual Property Constituency. Why didn't you
> > refer these applicants to their proper home within
> > ICANN instead of bastardizing the concept of At-Large
> > membership even further?
>
> I can only tell you what were my own reasons for voting in favour.
> From the diligence we made, it seems that the applicant is looking
> towards a broader perspective than the simple promotion of IP interests
> - they are apparently not interested in acting just as IP lawyers, but
> rather as individual users of the net. My idea is that - in the same
> spirit as in the original At Large elections, by the way - no one should
> be prevented from joining the At Large; that's exactly the sense of the
> term "primarily" in the document you quote, which, by the way, is not
> the binding definition of our constituency and mission, which is rather
> to be found in the ICANN Bylaws, and where the focus - appropriately, I
> think - is shifted from "everyone else" to "individual users of any kind".
> You should look at the At Large in the overall, not in its individual
> constituents; the only way to prevent capture by any group is for all
> groups to participate. I am looking forward to see other groups and
> organizations participating in the future - the solution is to be more
> inclusive, rather than less inclusive.
> Regards,
> -- 
> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...

  


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping