[ga] Re: Vote?

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

Eric and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  The first problem is which bull Eric?  The ALSC or the well
known and now documented stakeholder polls and comments
to this forum as well as in several news articles, and non ICANN
polls.

  The second important problem is that as you already know
Big business in ecommerce is in terms of real dollars is
not in the majority.  The GAO own figures which also have been
posted to the DNSO GA list on a number of occasions
represent 53% of all ecommerce revenue comes from small
to medium size business.  This percentage is expected to
increase in it's share of the total ecommerce area.

  The third, but of less impact is the growing non-commercial
or nonprofit portion of the Stakeholder community world wide
is also growing in terms of percentage according to the 2000
GAO census figures, and the revised 2001 figures as well.

  Hence Eric, it is not reasonable to reconsider as you seem to
suggest in the direction you also seem to be now flip-flopping
on and therefore the illegitimacy by in large of the ALSC's
"Final Report".

Eric Dierker wrote:

> You know Jeff if we could cut the crapp and bull and just recognize that big business
> is going to control; then maybe we could get Chuck to give some concessions.  You are
> oh so right on your points here but damned if I know how to get some consensus going
> on this issue.
>
> How about another vote?
>
> "Either any and all stakeholders, including stakeholder/usres
> have a right to participate, and that they are proportionately
> represented on the ICANN BoD without restriction or
> you do not have a legitimate At-Large."
>
> I say "yes"!!
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Jeff's point of view here but I wonder if we cannot reach some
> > > middle ground for consensus.
> >
> >   I honestly don't believe there is any middle ground here Eric.
> > The MoU and the White Paper are pretty clear on this.
> > Either any and all stakeholders, including stakeholder/usres
> > have a right to participate, and that they are proportionately
> > represented on the ICANN BoD without restriction or
> > you do not have a legitimate At-Large.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am an absolutist when it comes to contractual and promises, but should not
> > > those of us working for the little guy try to find some compromise of consensus
> > > area that works?
> > >
> > > When does a side have no right or rite to demand a change toward a better
> > > position?
> > >
> > > Answers anyone?
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Jeff William's wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
> > > >
> > > > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > > > > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > > > > Cc: [ga]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > (Text deleted)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
> > > > > > constituencies.  Approve the concept in principle and then you will
> > > > > > find members and structure will come easily.  Also one could assert
> > > > > > that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
> > > > > > initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
> > > > > > application as it could change the next day?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> > > > > it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> > > > > wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> > > > > the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> > > > > recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> > > > > needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.
> > > >
> > > >   The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
> > > > and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
> > > > and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
> > > > needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
> > > > majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > > (Text deleted)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DPF
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > david@farrar.com
> > > > > > ICQ 29964527
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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@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