[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

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

Esther and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Thank you for this update and information on your views posted
to the Reform comment area Esther.

  As you and may here know, INEGroup has been a growing
group of various stakeholders/users to represent interests that
feel that they are not, being refused/unduely constrained, or otherwise
censored from openly and transparently participating as viable
stakeholders in the ICANN experiment/process.  We have grown
to over 130,000 members at last official count.  We are very well
funded (approx. $16.8m) at present.  We have offered and still
are open to helping to fund any legitimate At-Large effort or
organization that does not exclude any stakeholder/user on
an equal playing field, and that has the right to vote for any
candidate that is self declared to fill the required 9 board seats
or 51% of the ICANN BoD.  Thus far no such organization
that the present ICANN BoD will, or is willing to except
meets that MoU based, very basic criterion.

  It is interesting that I until just reading this post from you Esther,
that I have not heard of your efforts.  Is there contact information
and a account number available to do our due diligence on your
mentioned efforts you stated below?  From what I can see
in your post the http://www.edventure.com/conversation/ seems
to be more of a PR campaign for yourself and Kevin Warbach
and perhaps your failing company, Edventure...


Esther Dyson wrote:

> FYI...
>
> Esther
>
> >To: reform-comments@icann.org
> >From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
> >Subject: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee
> >
> >Dear Committee:
> >
> >I will not add an opinion concerning the overall structure of ICANN. There
> >are already too many points of view on that, and I believe I share the
> >majority view: Come up with something that most of the parties can
> >agree/compromise on, and all of us can live with it.  That structure
> >should meet the existing tests of representing a diversity of views and
> >interests, including geographic diversity, it should fulfill the various
> >other requirements of the MoU, and it should consist of members from the
> >private (non-government) sector.  ICANN should reach out to the ccTLDs not
> >by asking them to sign a contract of fealty to ICANN, but rather by asking
> >them to join ICANN in order to participate in setting a minimum level of
> >policies that they will agree to implement themselves.
> >
> >ICANN and its community (mostly) are trying very hard to limit their
> >efforts to the *non*-political issues of the Net's technical
> >infrastructure. It's inevitable that there is some overlap, but it need
> >not be great. The fact that ICANN has very limited powers and is not a
> >treaty organization helps to maintain that distinction, because ICANN
> >simply has no authority to meddle in/decide the non-technical issues.
> >
> >Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed  "mission creep." As long
> >as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, that mission
> >creep is almost impossible.  But the moment it became part of, say, the
> >ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such authority/powers and
> >would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid.
> >
> >Those conflicts won't go away, and perhaps those issues do belong with the
> >ITU.  But ICANN's current formulation will help it to stay clear of them.
> >
> >THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP
> >
> >Leaving that aside, I'd like to discuss the role of an At-Large
> >Membership, which I believe is key to ICANN's perceived legitimacy and to
> >its actual success as a body that can fairly serve the broad public
> >interest (including the private interests of corporations and
> >individuals).  I include by reference the At-Large Study Committee's
> >study, which I hope will guide you as you consider the place and purpose
> >of the At-large Membership.
> >
> >Nonetheless, I'd like to add a few more urgent, practical points.  Even
> >before the Committee/Board/Community come up with a new improved structure
> >for ICANN, it is possible to make progress on the At-Large Membership. And
> >whatever form the ALM ultimately takes, it is clear that ICANN needs one,
> >for both substantive and political reasons.
> >
> >Therefore:
> >
> >1 - Please support the creation of an At-Large Organizing Committee *now*,
> >to carry on the work begun by the ALSC, and to keep its Forum mailing list
> >open.  I have managed to raise some funding for this committee ($22,500 so
> >far), and I'm sure more will be forthcoming the moment the ALOC gets any
> >kind of formal blessing and a staffer is hired using these funds.  (All
> >contributions welcome!)
> >
> >The board has already blessed it in principle by calling on the ICANN
> >staff to move forward on ALM "with energy and enthusiasm."  There is no
> >need for further formal process; the staff simply  has to move to make it
> >happen.  The Reform committee could help to move this along, and show that
> >ICANN *can* act with dispatch if problems of funding and the like are
> >resolved!
> >
> >
> >2 - Please support the activities of the ALOC as a meaningful step towards
> >a useful, constructive At-Large Membership.  Right now the various people
> >who are, consider themselves to be or would like to be At-Large Members
> >are mostly un-organized, mostly cynical and distrustful, and frustrated
> >that they cannot be heard.  One  could say that they should get better
> >organized, act more constructively, etc., even as *they* say that the
> >Board and staff should listen more attentively, reach out to them, etc.
> >etc.  The ALOC is a solid step towards *resolving* these complaints rather
> >than escalating the frustration on both sides.  The ALOC should be in
> >charge of *listening* to potential At-Large Members and organizations, as
> >well as reaching out to them. The ALSC assembled a substantial body of
> >commentary, names and other data during its work that can now be leveraged
> >for the next phase.
> >
> >The ALOC should foster efforts of AL Members to organize themselves and
> >participate in ICANN's decision-making constructively, with a focus not
> >just on ICANN's own governance, but on actual policies such as domain-name
> >transfer practices, WhoIs data policies and the like.  This kind of public
> >input on substantive matters will go a long way to answering governments'
> >and others' concerns that ICANN should not be a provider-only or
> >trade-union style organization.
> >
> >The ALOC should also work *with* the ICANN staff and board and its other
> >stakeholders to figure out a way for the Membership, once it is
> >participating actively and constructively, to select a number of board
> >members, with elections as the ultimate goal.
> >
> >Esther Dyson
> >former member, At-Large Study Committee
> >former chairman, ICANN Board
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/

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