Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

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

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 08:06 23/11/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> >Whenever I hear the word consensus now even outside of the confines of ICANNs
> >little world I cringe.
>
> No kidding.
>
> >We would be best served by establishing a set of workable voting
> >systems/processes, doing away with the lie of "consensus" that has
> >permeated ICANN as well as the constant gerrymandering the occurs on a
> >daily basis dedicated to keeping people *out* rather than bringing them
> >in.
>
> If ICANN or DNSO decisionmaking would be on the basis of one-(wo)man,
> one-vote there would be an urgent need for safety-in -numbers.

  Indeed.  But possibly this is not a bad thing.  If interested parties
and stakeholders were not actively blocked from participation as is
being done correctly the participation from all types of stakeholders
would be much greater.  As we all know, the stakeholders/usres
are by far the largest group.  Hence they would if allowed to
participate openly and fairly in the DNSO GA or any of the
other constituencies to which they fit (Thinking of the Jefsey vs Kent
Krispin dilemma in the BC and the Noncom) there would be the
accurate and honest balance.  Ergo INEGroup members and/or
Erics "Dotcommers" would have a voice and a vote and a proper
representation in line with the MoU and the White Paper would
or at least could be eventually established.

>
>
> The current number of participants is not nearly enough to prevent a quick
> member recruitment and capture by, say , the deep pocketed IP lobby.

  Well we {INEGroup] are also fairly Deep pocketed as well.  However
our members have been actively blocked from participation especially
in the GA as well as to a lesser degree in the constituencies.  Now
sense the ALSC Final Report it would seem that the ICANN BoD
and staff have the opinion that a proposed "ALSO" would not include
Stakeholders/usres or non-domain Name holders.  This is skewed
in the extreme in a direction that is not representative of the stakeholder
community or the Internet community.

>
>
> This is where the original idea of a healthy At Large membership of several
> hundred thousand comes in.

  Not just several hundred thousand.  But open to any and all stakeholders...

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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