Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves. - Joops "IC" proposal Charter

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:08:26 +1200, Joop Teernstra
> <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >The ALSC has now also come up with Individual DN Holders as "members" of ICANN.
> >If in their final position the criteria for membership of the two will be
> >alike , then obviously, the two will merge.
> >(In the near-final draft of the ALSC they are not alike--the draft speaks
> >about "contact" in their current definition of Individual Domain Name Holder.)
>
> I would put it stronger than that.  The more I study it the more I
> believe that what the ALSC has proposed will not be anything like a
> true voice for individuals but a mixture of the Business and IP
> Constituencies which will merely allow others to join.

  Unfortunately I believe you may be correct here...  :(   Indeed this
is a sad commentary upon the ICANN BOD and staff....

>  With possible
> annual fees of US$100 it will in fact destroy the at large membership
> while being used as a justification for not needing more individual
> representation.

  Yes, unfortunately this is could be used for that purpose.  With such a
which membership fee as you state here, many in under developed countries
that are stakeholders will be unable to be participants in the process of
policy making that shall have the greatest effect upon them specifically.

>
>
> >The DNSO constituency role is to be actively involved with policymaking and
> >al Large members who are satisfied with electing regional directors or
> >involvement in regional councils can restrict their participation to that.
> >Participation in the work of the DNSO would be the logical proving ground
> >for candidate at Large Directors.
> >
> >But the at Large is still in the future. The DNSO and its Individuals
> >Constituency is here and now.
>
> I agree that work on an individuals constituency until such time as
> the DNSO is changed.
>
> >The Task Force now has a proposal to look at.
>
> But unfortunately a proposal put together by just one person with no
> effort at consensus or wide-spread participation.

  God point...

>
>
> If the proposal though is open for modification then I would suggest
> the GA itself would be the best place to debate it to get wide
> participation.

  Agreed.  And the whole proposed Charter must be open for
modification and amendment as well...

>
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html