Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ALSC-Forum] icannatlarge.com security issue

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:25 p.m. 10/05/2002 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>I have never advocated "no icannatlarge.com"... instead I have chastised the
>membership for failing to produce a proposal to incorporate the At-Large into
>the ICANN structure, and for being diverted into building yet another
>At-Large structure while there are already plenty of At-Large structures out
>there.

Danny,

Please tell us, which ones are out there? How are they structured? Funded?

Are they specifically made up of people who know what ICANN is about?

[or should I read your advocacy of ISOC as the answer?]

>This has shifted the energy away from attacking ICANN's perverse
>plans, and has resulted in an unorganized opposition that is more focused on
>procedural matters (voting, bylaws, etc.) than on substantive plans to
>protect the At-large and to guarantee the seating of At-Large directors.

I see it exactly from the opposite direction.
Wasting our time making proposals to an ICANN that is stone deaf to 
individual opinions distracts from the essential structure building that 
will allow our representatives (to whomever plays the ICANN role) to speak 
with the autority of a large membership.

>Call it anarchy if you like, but I prefer it to your organized lethargy.

To each his own, Danny. Organized lethargy (=foundation building) will 
outlast anarchy.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   interim webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de