[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Blueprint Passes
- To: Izumi AIZU <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Blueprint Passes
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:44:37 -0700
- CC: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Izumi and all stakeholders of interested parties,
Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Thanks Alex and Esther for sharing the latest info.
Esther has yet again just betrayed all stakeholders/users
by protecting the ICANN board as best she could.
I cannot, nor will any of our members, especially in
your country Izumi support such and individual.
However, that said, some of you other thoughts below
have merit and are worthy of consideration and thought.
But time short, and the hills are now steeper to climb..
So more comments below your below, Izumi...
> I had to leave Bucharest early this morning around 5:30 AM,
> and thus could not monitor the last moment there.
> I am now at the Paris CDG airport lounge to transfer to Tokyo.
> Anyway, I think the At-Large Advisory Committee idea is
> not in anyway the best or ideal, and since all the details are
> not discussed or showed at all, it is understandable to deny
> this and call for direct representation and participation.
We don't need yet another At-Large advisory committee.
It is a total waste of time, effort, and will accomplish little
of what the stakeholders have already voted and voiced
what they want and deserve.
> I would take the same stand if I were in Accra, though. But it
> is also very apparent that the Board clearly rejected the
> direct election approach in Accra.
Yes it was. And this alone justifies the board being removed
or a rebid of the ICANN contracts to commence.
> And the ERC in its final report
> and blue print did not even mention the participatory mechanism
> which the Board endorsed in their resolution in Accra.
> With these facts as background, there are two approaches left I think.
> One is still try to engage "inside" ICANN, meaning accepting the majority
What majority? Majority of what or of whom?
> decision (of the Board and of the community there) and behave within the
> given and make further effort to realize what we think the best.
The framework is terrible flawed. Was not determined by the stakeholders
as is required in the White Paper and the MoU, and therefore is not
> Another is go "outside" of ICANN and rally, lobby, target ICANN to change using
> external forces.
This is the only real option that can have an effect now...
> I am, at least for the timing being, still thinking the first approach
> has some value. I may be very wrong.
You are very wrong if you think that JUST working inside the ICANN
Structure yet again changed without the vote of the stakeholders will
> But I am not convinced (yet)
> to take the second approach only. They are not mutually exculsive.
True, they are not mutually exclusive. However emphases on the
second approach as you put it here, would more likely bare fruit.
> If the first approach completely fails, then I would either take the
> second one or I might simply leave. I don't know.
> ICANN is not the only game in town for us.
Who's us?? Which "US" are you talking about here?
> It is a difficult situation and difficult judgment. I hope those
> who stand with the principle of direct representation and participation
> will not simply deny the other approach who still think direct representation
> and participation is the goal.
> The difference to me is not the goal, but how to reach there.
Without a goal, how to reach it is not even relevant...
> I accidentally met with Jamie this morning in the hotel lobby,
> at 5:30 AM. And we kind of agreed or at least understood
> that we share the same goal.
> I share all the frustrations and complaints and even angers with
> him or with you.
> But I also like to add that these emotions be directed to the right
> target; please do not shoot your (potential) friends from behind
> and leave the real target intact.
Jamie is a friend of the stakeholder/user. He is because he knows
that it is in his and everyones best interests, both individually and
collectively. This is what the ICANN BOD and staff do not
understand. And so far, I see little to no hint that they will be
understanding it in the near term... But of course, I, along with
many of our members have said all this before..
> It is important now to raise awareness to wider audience
> than on this list, let them join icannatlarge.com and coming
You already have a huge audience. What you/we don't have at
ICANNATLARGE.COM is organization. We [INEGroup]
> We really need good, fresh and capable members
> to establish and run this organization. That is a challenge.
Not that big of a challenge. There are a number of very
good people that are members of ICANNATLARGE.COM.
Most are not recognized properly or adequately.
> (I will be mostly "off-line" for the weekend)
> At 10:14 02/06/28 +0300, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >At 28.06.2002 03:03, Esther Dyson wrote:
> > >But the motion included support for the creation of an At-Large Advisory
> > Committee.
> > >
> > >Esther Dyson
> > >
> > >At 02:42 AM 6/28/2002, Lawrence Solum wrote:
> > >>The Blueprint motion just passed with minor amendments.
> >http://log.does-not-exist.org/ has the Blueprint motion
> >(without amendments to the *motion* made during the
> >Board meeting which are in my notes at
> >/// Alexander
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> >For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org