Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

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

Jamie and all assembly members,

James Love wrote:

> 1.  What is the argument for not having people vote in a GA ballot measure,
> if they care about an ICANN issue?

  That is a good question that I have yet to see a reasonable or
ligitimate statement/argument in response...

>  I posted some notices that there will be
> a vote in the GA, and gave out pointers where to register.   There have not
> been that many new voter registrations, and certainly a lot of the ones that
> are new are people with a long history of following ICANN, who just were not
> registered.   I wasn't registered until a few days ago, despite having spent
> more time (and travel money) on ICANN matters over the years that one could
> rationally justify.    It would be one thing if someone was going around a
> neighborhood or shopping center and signing up people at random who did not
> know anything.   Every place where I posted information about the ICANN GA
> vote has already had a slug of ICANN posts over the past year or so.   I was
> surprised for example to see Alexander signal out the NCDNHC post (they are
> a DNSO constituency) or ICANNWatch?  Are these your ideas of uninformed
> persons?   I wish Dave Farber had run something on this, or NetTime too.
> Many of the best ideas about ICANN are not coming from GA members, but from
> others, who if they knew there was an opportunity to vote, would.   I'm not
> signing up by brother in law or kids friends for this. Out of an office
> staff of 25, we have only two registered (both of us have been attending
> ICANN board meetings for years) and I am insulted by some of the inferences
> that have been made.   Is there *any* evidence that any of the new
> registrations are not more informed about ICANN that the ancient ones (many
> of whom probably don't even following things anymore)?

  None that I can find thus far...

>    It has of course
> been discussed on several non-GA lists, including for example closed lists
> like icann-alsg, set up by TR (which I think is a good thing).   I would
> like to see *more* not less outreach on this vote, but after these
> complaints, who will do it?

  I am doing it as best I can...

>
>
> 2.  One reason to have this vote is that the ICANN board and staff are
> telling governments (everywhere) that they have a consensus in the "Internet
>  community" on the reform process.

  Good point.  And of course this is an untrue statement for them to be
making...

>  And if they say so, who is to say
> otherwise?  Unless, for example, you have something like a vote.

  Also a good point here as well.  Or we could ask for a ouster
of most of the current ICANN BOD members most especially
the present "Board Squatters"...  Perhaps that should be in another
motion should this one fail to be voted upon or found in favor...

>   Right
> now a GA vote will be a data point.  I think a useful data point regarding
> the degree of consensus on the Lynn/Board "reform" efforts, and it would be
> more interesting if there was larger participation, going even beyond the
> hyperactive GA-list posting community.

  It's way beyond the GA members community now...

>
>
>   Jamie
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>

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