Re: [ga] At-Large

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

Karl and all assembly members,

  Thank you Karl for yet again setting straight our forgetful
chair as to your reasons for not attending in Bucharest.  It
somewhat reminded me of inviting a troll back into it's cage.  >;)

  I also agree with you as do our members, that the continuing
game of the GA members somehow or for some reason
needing permission as to what they can vote upon.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:
> >
> > >There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was
> > >a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.
> >
> > Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.
>
> First, I decided not to attend in person on advice of counsel (due to my
> litigation with ICANN).
>
> Second, I had intended to participate by telephone.  However, it turned
> out, very much to my surprise, that where I was had neither voice nor
> internet connectivity.  (I could have driven 15km over an unpaved road to
> get to a voice phone, but that would have meant sitting in an open parking
> lot (in the rain) on a pay phone from midnight until dawn.)
>
> This was the first public meeting of ICANN that I wasn't able to
> participate in.
>
> > >However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful
> > >to me that the outcome would have been any different.
> >
> > Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered
> > membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because
> > "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he
> > should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the
> > word "unanimous" from the public reports.)
>
> I have hardly given up.  There are, unfortunately only 24 hours in a day.
>
> As for the "unanimous" aspect - It saddens me to see how completely ICANN
> has repudiated its responsibility to the public and has retreated into a
> kind of dark-ages oligarchic mentality.
>
> I can understand the fear of the US that has driven some board members to
> chose the so-called "evolution" approach.  However, my own sense is that
> this "evolution" has derailed ICANN so badly that the "evolution" actually
> makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that the US Gov't will step
> in.
>
> (There are some board members who are thoughtful and who make considered
> judgements.  Unfortunately, ICANN's board is hermetically sealed off from
> public commentary - ICANN spoon feeds pre-digested information to the
> board [and you can guess who does the pre-digestion and what the result
> looks and smells like].  Although all board members speak English, it is
> not necessarily the language they are most comfortable with.  Thus it is
> often difficult for some directors to obtain independent information.)
>
> I spent the two weeks before the Bucharest meeting in DC - I testified
> before a US Senate subcommittee, met with several people from both the
> House and Senate, and also met with a number of people from the Department
> of Commerce and other executive agencies.
>
> I perceive a collision course between ICANN and the US government over
> ICANN's failures, not the least being the failure of the so-called
> "reform" or "evolution" plan to comport with the obligations that ICANN
> undertook when it received the nod from the US government when ICANN was
> formed.
>
> As for the GA: It is possible to find fault with anyone and anything.  My
> own sense is that the GA is doing very well; that despite the differences,
> most of the leadership and most of the membership is looking and pulling
> in roughly the same direction.
>
> Attacks on ourselves - on our own friends - are not a productive exercise.
>
> I personally would like to see the GA more clearly define its procedures -
> and since it is an assembly of indpendent people who chose to be there on
> their own free will, I don't see why the GA needs to think that it has to
> have permission from on high to institute those procedures (including
> voting to ascertain the group opinion when it is reasonable to do so.)
>
> > Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not
> > a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open
> > polls instead, and most of the problems go away.
>
> This is the kind of issue that can become divisive if we let it be.  But
> we don't have to let it be - we can take the constructive course and agree
> to disagree - and eventually take a vote about the taking of votes ;-)
>
> And, of course, we all need to learn not to feed the trolls.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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