Re: [ga] At large presentation

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

Leah and all assembly members,

  Oh Jamie's voice is being heard.  The problem is that the ICANN
BoD and staff along with Ex-Board member Esther Dyson and
Denise are just ignoring those many voices.  It is clear as it has
been from the beginning that the than ICANN "Interim" board
and staff had and still has not intention of owning up to their
mandate and contractually responsibilities of the White Paper
and the MoU to which they are now plainly in abeyance
of.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> Jamie,
>
> If only you could clone yourself a few million times, maybe your voice
> would be a force.  It's a shame that people seem to have given up due to
> the obvious futility of the individual's fight to exist in the ICANN
> framework.
>
> Personally, I was proud of you and would like to thank you for
> attempting to put a voice to the frustrations of most of us in the user
> community.
>
> Leah
>
> On 26 Jun 2002, at 3:38, James Love wrote:
>
> > I'm in the GA, and Denise, Esther, Vittorio, and Izumi Aizu and on the panel
> > to present a report on the at large organizing effort.
> >
> > Denise:
> > In Accra, the board has called for bottom up at large "structures."   She
> > reports $17k in contributions for at-large.org, and asks for more money.
> > 16 "at large structures" have been created or designated by the effort.  The
> > implication is that all the groups who are listed on the at-large.org web
> > page are on board with this new approach.  There is some talk of creating a
> > "structured role" in policy making, and input into the board decisions.
> > She ends with a slide that says that greater involvement of governments and
> > establishment of 'meaningful' participation by individuals are not
> > necessarily mutually exclusive.   Esther then jumped in to say some people
> > didn't support a greater role by governments.
> >
> > Izumi Aizu and Vittorio Bertola appeared on the pane with Esther and Denise,
> > and were generally supportive of the presentation by Esther or Denise.
> >
> > Esther made a confident (almost smug) presentation.  She said "I hope you
> > walk away with an appreciation by the huge amount of progress that has been
> > made."  Earlier the at large was an "incoherent" idea, now it is something
> > with .5 million people engaged through the 16 groups, and a structure in
> > place to provide input.  If ICANN becomes government controlled, it will
> > become too powerful.  It is really important that ICANN be controlled by
> > users, by the participants, than by governments.
> >
> > I just had my time at the mike from the floor... and went through the
> > basics...   The proposal for "at large structures" eliminates any votes by
> > individuals.  The White Paper gave individuals 8 of 19 board seats.  In
> > Cairo this was reduced to 5.  In Accra, the 5 elected seats were phased out,
> > but there was some hope that there would be an at large SO with maybe 3
> > seats on the board.  Now you have an at large "structure" that at best can
> > place 1 member on a 19 member nominating committee for some board seats, and
> > no one can explain even how that 1 person is selected.  To present this as a
> > success for enhancing the power of individual internet users is absurd.  I
> > said it was not true, as implied by Denise Michel's presentation, that the
> > groups listed as part of the at-large.org effort support the elimination of
> > elections for ICANN board members or the proposals in the blueprint to
> > dismantle democratic mechanisms (http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm).
> >
> > Denise said that CPSR was in fact supportive of the new "at large
> > structures" approach, and had joined in submissions on this to the ICANN
> > reform.    I'll let Andy Oram and Hans Klein respond with any helpful
> > clarificatons on this point.
> >
> > This was followed by a presentation on the Canadian Internet Registration
> > Authority (CIRA), which recently concluded its elections.   Alexander
> > Svensson then asked a series of good questions, asking about how the elected
> > members addressed issues of mission creep, why participation has declined in
> > elections, and about "outreach" in the elections.  I asked if there was
> > fraud?  And also, how much does it cost to audit the elections?  The CIRA
> > rep said that mission creep had not been a problem, the board had kept
> > things fairly narrow, and that many people seemed satified with the CIRA
> > operation, and were just didn't feel the need to be bother as long as things
> > were working ok.   The last CIRA election had about 1,000 voters.  The CIRA
> > has an external audit function, which ended up questioning about 100 votes,
> > and ended up rejecting about 10.  The cost of the audit and verification
> > proceedure was about $3,000 for the June 2002 election.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> > http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> > voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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