Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Danny, the icannatlarge.com panel hasn't even been in place 1 full week yet.
It's main job is to set the stage for a more permanent governing structure.
The panel's term ends in less than 90 days.   It does not have a very broad
manadate to make policy.   It's about a year or two late, but so what.   You
think the last 5 days haven't produced enough results?

 Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <vb@vitaminic.net>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com


> Vittorio,
>
> You have been in the ICANN environment long enough to understand the
negative
> consequences of recommendations that are formulated at too high a level of
> generality.  As the saying goes... the devil is in the details.  The
Board,
> in Resolution 02.22, has asked to be provided with "specifics" such as:
>
> 1.  the ways the different components of any proposed structure will
function
> together and interact;
> 2.  the system of checks and balances that will ensure both the
effectiveness
> and the openness of the organization.
> 3.  the ways in and conditions under which essential components of any
> proposed structure that may not be able to be fully incorporated at the
start
> of the reform process will be included when appropriate; and
> 4.  a description of a proposed transition process from the current
structure
> to any recommended new structure, including a description of how the
present
> components of ICANN relate to the new proposed structure, and the
anticipated
> timetable for that transition;
>
> Specifics have not been articulated in most of the comments submitted thus
> far.  Instead, most comments tend to take the form of  "I don't have a
> specific suggestion to offer, but I can tell you that I don't like this
part
> of Stuart's plan."  The implication is that the Board Committeee should
just
> come up with something else.
>
> Do you trust the Board and Staff sufficiently to settle upon whatever they
> propose?  Why then are you leaving it in their hands, rather than
> individually or collectively drafting a comprehensive counter-proposal
that
> at least offers the same degree of granularity that is to be found in
> Stuart's plan?  You and your fellow activists have been waging the
At-large
> War for several years now.  This is not the time to allow yourselves to be
> reduced to a "mechanism" by some Board Committee when representational
issues
> are at stake, and when the future structure of ICANN and its Board
> composition are on the line...
>
> You state:  I really don't understand what you want us to do.  Let me be
> clear... I am expecting those that sincerely believe in the At-Large to
come
> up with a highly-detailed comprehensive proposal that addresses the
> "specifics" that the Board has requested, and to do it in a timely fashion
so
> that such input can be considered by the group that is now formulating
their
> specific recommendations to the Board, the Evolution and Reform Committee.
>
> You are in the final minutes of the game with the goal line in view.  Now
is
> not the time to fumble the ball.  Surely among your many associates, there
is
> a sufficiently large enough brain trust and commitment to get the job
done.
>
> If you fail to put such a comprehensive plan on the table, then you will
have
> to live with the fact that the "specifics" advanced by others (such as
ICANN
> Staff) prevailed in the absence of your detailed input.  The choice is
yours
> to make.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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