<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
- To: jcohen@shapirocohen.com, vinton.g.cerf@WCOM.COM, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com, karl@CaveBear.com, k13@nikhef.nl, ivanmc@akwan.com.br, lyman@acm.org, f.fitzsimmons@att.net, mkatoh@mkatoh.net, hans@icann.org, shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, lynn@icann.org, andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp, quaynor@ghana.com, helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de, linda@icann.org, nvictory@ntia.doc.gov, ga@dnso.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:56:03 EDT
- Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org
Jon,
I respect your call for "balance" and some decent debate. To that end, I
would like to offer you my perspective as a volunteer that like yourself has
also participated in the ICANN process at considerable personal cost in time,
energy, and money.
There was a time when the Internet community expected to see nine At-large
directors on the Board. Some of us were able to comprehend the rationale to
reduce this number to five. But now after several year's worth of
discussion, the number has been reduced to Zero. If you were in our shoes,
you would assuredly think that the pendulum has swung way too far in the
wrong direction. While others are entitled to representation and are able to
elect their own directors onto the Board, the At-large community is now being
denied this opportunity -- simply put, this is not in keeping with the spirit
of fairness that ICANN seeks to promote as a core value. The concept of
"balance" would dictate at least some degree of representation for the
At-Large.
I, for one, am prepared to accept and make concessions. While (9) is the
magic number for me, and (0) is the magic number for the Board, somewhere in
that range should be a number that reasonable people can agree upon... it is
time to end this unnecessary posturing and arrive at a solution that no one
will truly like, but that everyone can live with.
Zero representatives for the At-large is not a "reasonable" proposition --
you can't expect us to accept that scenario without ongoing never-ending
acrimony. For ICANN to function well it needs to resolve this issue amicably
so that we can all return to a focus on the day-to-day problems that require
our full-time attention. As a reasonable man, would you be willing to come
back to the table and offer up another proposal that at least provides for
some degree of representation for the At-Large? Feel free to ask for
concessions on our part as well.
Best wishes,
Danny
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|