Re: [ga] Re: Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Mr. Palmer you are right.

But let us exercise patience.  Move forward with purpose and competition.  The
best will rise is such an environment - perhaps you.

Eric

John Palmer wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Cc: <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:51 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
>
> > Mike Roberts writes:  "The direct election option is gone."
> >
> > It doesn't matter that after a year-long study the ALSC still supported
> > direct elections, that NAIS supported direct elections, that Public Forum
> > participants supported direct elections, that the GA, NCDNHC,BC, gTLDs
> > supported direct elections... the only thing that matters to Mike is that
> we
> > resign ourselves to acceptance of the verdict of the Board to eliminate
> > direct elections.
> >
> > Why should we?
> >
>
> But how do we get them to listen, Danny? They have a (not so) hidden
> agenda that absolutly requires them to have control over the board. Their
> goals are in direct opposition to what is right for the internet community.
>
> How long are people going to try to work within the system? When will
> folks realize that its rigged and you cannot accomplish anything from within
> because they wont let you? Thats what we in the inclusive  namespace
> have been saying for a long time.
>
> If we could get a large number of people to switch  - ICANN would be
> irrelevant.
>
> If you dont like the current batch of inclusive roots, how about some big,
> respected names on the internet getting together and building a root
> network that people will respect. One that has the backing of some money
> (there are people with money who DONT like ICANN).
>
> > If this Board is incapable of recognizing broad consensus, then why we
> should
> > we bother to participate in any schemes to retain these incumbents?  Did
> the
> > Board recognize the consensus on the VeriSign renegotiations?  Did the
> Board
> > respect the consensus on dot org?  Of course not, and rather than abiding
> by
> > the rules "as they are required to do" and remanding policy
> recommendations
> > back to the originating SO's for further work if so required, they instead
> > arbitrarily and capriciously crafted their own resolutions at odds with
> the
> > community will.  This has become an ugly pattern.
> >
> > There are no checks on the power of this Board-run-amok.  Until such
> checks
> > are in place, why should we choose to cooperate?  Any consensus that we
> reach
> > is guaranteed to be overturned by the Board with no right of appeal other
> > than to the same smug insiders that sit on the reconsideration committee.
> >
> > If you expect us to "get to work", give us first an Independent Review
> Board.
> >
>
> They have no intention of listening to us. Please everyone, wake up. Until
> they
> are forced to change in the right direction (by DOC/USG, congress, whatever)
> they will not.
>
> John
>
> -------
> AGN Domain Name Services, Inc  http://www.adns.net
> Since 1995. The Registry for .AMERICA, .EARTH, .LION, .USA and .Z
> Define yourself or Be Defined.
> Censorship-free GA list at : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga
>
> --
> 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

--
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