Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

I would agree with everything Eric says, and putting this up was a very
good piece
of work. For possible use at Stockholm, what I would be doing (in my
current state
of just working my way into this whole thing) if I were going, since
we seem to have
a Resolution from the Board regarding an Individuals Constituency,
and evidently some
action (i.e., form a Working Group) expected out of the Names Council,
I would
search the archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html, under the
NC, and maybe
there we'll find out what's going on.  (I'll be doing that
search myself, but I also have
to make a living with this computer thingee here in front of me!) I
hope to find stuff,
but if nothing is there, the above link reference will go into my EVIDENCE
folder.

(My thanks to the Secretariat for re-directing me to that site -- I'd had it once but
lost it.  But a dumb question: why is the NC mailing list not public?  How does that
square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)

(Um, "black ops" are not fictional.)

Eric, your best line is this one: "Whether your ultimate goal was reached or not the
wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and passionate" -- Joop's
work certainly helped me get going!

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

Joop,

You and I will never agree on many issues but that is the nature of us.
But, no one can ever doubt your hard work and comittment to the cause.  Of all of the people that have kept ICANN from going completely into black ops it is you. (black ops are "fictional" operations of a clandestine nature that are not recorded or paid for officially). Wether your ultimate goal was reached or not the wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and passionate.

Now with that platitude aside and with all your wisdom would you please lay out the steps "I" would need to do at the Open board meeting, in Stockholm, to present a document and an argument to have this constituency NOW. As I think I have already confessed I amoung others would make lousy Chairs but we can fight for and "die" for a good cause.  Some of us may even be trained a little in the arts of persuasion.

Sincerely,
 
 
 

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

 
Joop Teernstra wrote:

At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.
>Last updated June 1999.
>

Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear on
the ICANN website at all.

Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.

Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.

If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that your efforts were not
persistent, that would have been a misleading.  Although your material
appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is not
your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999.
If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!), what I
intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"

("That page" being http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.)

Bill Lovell