ICANn meetings and reaching out.

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

Patrick and all,

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> >
> > > One could argue that it even went backward by including
> > > the Art. V, Sec. 14 addition mandating the Board constantly
> > > move its meeting place around the world.  (Thanks for highlighting
> > > it in yellow, Ellen.)  How this serves anyone's interests
> > > but the Board taking endless paid junkets through the
> > > fleecing of Internet users, beats me.
> >
> > Let's just require that all board members live in San Jose and hold
> > all meetings in a centrally located cafe in San Jose.  Yeah right.
> >
> > If the board members are uniformly distributed throughout the world,
> > as they should approximately be, then random locations around the
> > world won't really increase the overall travel costs.
>
> There is a wonderful device that was invented in the late 1800's called
> the telephone. It works pretty darn well. The ISP/C uses it for all its'
> board meetings save the annual one.

  It is a good point that Patrick is making here.  I was requested to makesuch a
suggestion of the ICANN Interim Board along these lines regarding the
Boston meeting having 800 # question amongst other suggestions.  I honored
that request as spokesman for out group (INEG Group).  I exchanged several
E-Mails with Ben Edelman (cc'ed on this post) concerning this function and
having CNN, TNT, and CBC with providing Broadcasting live and live
imput through Internet Video Confrencing for the Boston Meeting.  Ben
indicated that he had not contacted any of the organizations I suggested.
(Relevant post can be provided by private Request).  I personally checked
with CNBC, TNT, CNN, NyNEX, and Bell Atlantic for 800# call lines.
None of these folks even knew of the ICANN none the less been contacted
by ICANN or any representative of ICANN.  I than sent Ben Edelman
my phone number stating that if he would call I would attempt to assist
him in providing for broader participation in the Boston Meeting.  That
has been over a week ago now and no reply or retrun phone call.

  What all this amounts to is that there seems to be strong reluctance
on the Part of the ICANN Interim Board to "Reach Out" to the Stakeholder
community in any meaningful manner.  We find this extraordinary and inconsistent
with the precepts of the White Paper in the extreme.

>
>
> There is no need for our company and our customers to bear the costs of an
> ICANN that wants to jetset. Now, if ICANN were to make the meetings open
> to the public as they should be given the nature of what they are doing,
> that would be a different matter entirely.

  Completely agreed ( See above comments ).  There is in inherent lack ofeither
ability or will on the part of the ICANN Interim Board to adequately
and basically provide for the vast majority of the Internet Stakeholder community
to participate, none the less provide for a truly Open process and Esther
Dyson promised in her November 6th letter to the NTIA.

>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell                                        (800) 299-1288 v
>                                     CTO                  (925) 377-1212 v
>                                  NameSecure              (925) 377-1414 f
> Coming to the ISPF-II?  The Forum for ISPs by ISPs       http://www.ispf.com
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894