RE: Walking away (was: Re: [ga] Result of PGP key experiment)

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> I respect your opinion, but I am still convinced that there
> are many more
> people that are driven away from the discussion list because
> of the lack of
> substantial discussion than because of the lack of impact on ICANN's
> decision of the little discussion that we do.

I am not claiming that there is no effect. Low signal-to-noise ratios are
definitely keeping a large percentage of folks away from this activity
center.

However, what is ALSO an effector are certain activities that discredit the
DNSO and the ICANN.

In no particular order;
1) Voting for officers that may be nullified by the NC
2) Voting when voters can not be qualified/verified.
3) Three levels of voter dilution (or more, I haven't counted deeper, why
bother).
4) General lack of direction (outside of the WGs)
5) Railroad trains everywhere.
6) No consistent voting process.
7) GA members without constituency
8) Refusal to recognise other valid constituencies.
9) Not even a committee, or WG, on voting procedures/process/methods.
10) Recognised constituencies that do not have a visible membership
registration process (or even a home-page).
11) Inadequate constituency requirements.
12) Inconsistent constituency recognition.
13) Initial NC is stuffed with known sycophants.
14) Elected NC is tainted by improper voting procedures.

There is more, but this is bad enough. Add this to the constant bickering
and you have folks leaving in droves. What has become clear is that ICANN
and DNSO need proper voter registration and verification procedures/systems,
without which, the votes blatantly appear to be the farce that they truely
are. In the WG's, we get away with semi-formal procedures because we know
each other fairly well and there is a smaller number of us. We are also not
electing persons to reponsible posts. The WG polls are more of a consensus
gathering excersize and don't pretend to be voting procedures. Frankly, we
know better than to claim otherwise.

Personally, my goals for participation are being met. Those goals do not
include any expectation that ICANN or DNSO has any relevent authority. Nor
do they include any expectation that either organization will be ultimately
effective. Ergo, I am not disappointed. Were I to care about those sorts of
things, I would be greatly upset and disappointed.

Note: After one year,
1) the ICANN still doesn't have the technical where-with-all to run even ONE
root-servers.net machine, let alone manage the entire legacy root system.
2) the ICANN/DNSO is still not funded, nor does it have any sort of revenue
stream.
3) not one MAC recommendation has been implemented.
4) ICANN has ByLaws that now look like swiss cheese.
5) ICANN has no membership.
6) ICANN has no Internet community consensus.
7) both organizations are still top-down autocracies.
8) primary goals of both organizations have still not been met, even in
part.

I wish you well Roberto, gut yuletide.