Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kristy,
may be the real reason why the ICANN does not release the @large list is to 
be found somewhere else. From what I gather election.com came across their 
worst nightmare ever with their 50% discounted 2000 @large election. The 
information provided by the ICANN was a mess and they - say the hearsay - 
never addressed properly the requests from election.com.

1. as we have no reason to suspect that the Staff is not serious, we may 
deduct that the lists are beyond recovery and that releasing them would 
create a bigger scandal than not to release them. This may come from the 
unexpected number of @large registrations they did not addressed properly.

2. it is unlikely that election.com would accept to discount anything to 
the ICANN, doubling the budget planned by the Staff.

3. it is likely that the exposure given by Lynn's scheme to the ICANN and 
to the possible @large election would lead to far more than the ALSC 5.000 
target. If you fear 150.000 again at $1 for election.com and may-be at 
$1.5/$ 2 for collection, mailing and management, this is a too large a cost.

In that perspective, what I suggest from the begining seems to be 
expectable. That everyone registered on one of the ICANN gouvernance 
mailing lists (ASO - PSO, ISOC, W3C, PSO, GA, ALSC) make the @large. This 
is Esther's initiative: 600 to 2000 people on Joop's list. This permits the 
BoD to decide in Shangai to use this list for a quick election:
- no commitment on future yet a real election
- no risk of vote capture
- no identification needed
- no protestation - those who could protest would vote
- anough balancing between activits and techies
- a very short campaign preventing mad schemes to develop
- a continuation for the board squatters

An easier solution would even be a statu quo referendum for consensus by 
Joop's list.

It is also a good reason why my proposition to seriously structure the 
@large on a Local Internet Community basis is dangerous. This would give 
real weight to the @large, to the ccTLDs and to the Govs (together with the 
ccTLDs). Today the game is to make believe the Govs could support the 
ICANN. If they were supportingthei @large, it would kill the scheme.

Jefsey












On 16:41 18/03/02, Kristy McKee said:
>Vint, I appreciate you taking the time to write; however you have added 
>nothing to our conversation and have not even attempted to answer the 
>question asked.
>
>Only your private little group believes the At Large was a one time 
>thing.  No one in the general public has that understanding.
>
>I do understand the ICANN staff, like the board members are technically 
>challenged, especially in terms of handling databases.
>
>Perhaps you could reach inside yourself and provide us with a truthful 
>response.
>
>Thanks,
>
>~k
>
>At 10:32 AM 3/18/2002 -0500, vint cerf wrote:
>>no I can't because the board's view was that elections were infeasible
>>at the moment. The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
>>seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
>>the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.
>>
>>vint
>>
>>At 09:03 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>> >Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
>> >component, and given that the current AtLarge
>> >Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
>> >as to the proposed time frame for said election component
>> >to be announced?
>
>--
>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

--
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