<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee
Jeff:
I'd like to do a due diligence analysis of your INEGroup130,000 members
and $16.8m. Could you kindly provide the necessary contact information?
:-)
Bill Lovell
Jeff Williams wrote:
3CBE1EC8.F216E1EA@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 I
CANN 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 conflic
ts 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 peopl
e
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 s
uch 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|