Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [OFFLINE]Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of personal privilege -- I'm being disenfranchised byglitches in the system!

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

Ir's not very offline, though given how quickly they update
the archives, there may be no practical difference, if
you also address: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
in the headers...
Nevertheless I put it back, because frankly I'm gone
from this addy soon, I'll come back in a new identity,
if JW can do it, so can anyone. With the small caveat
that I might make a difference. Anyway, read on...

At 02:17 AM 04/08/02 -0400, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> There never was a "thanks for being a member and f***
> off now because the organization no longer exists" message
> from ICANN -- just the information that the question of At
> Large membership had been revisited and eviscerated as
> ICANN had decided unilaterally that users should not be
> permitted representatives on the Board.
Sorry, but that's how Kent does it, there aren't too
many ways to be subtle about a bullet in the brain.
It is binary, you're either a one or a zero. You're
not paying his salary (unless you're a domain name
registrant), therefore you're a zero. Bang! Or you
are a domain name registrant and paying his salary.
Bang! Hey, wazzup with that?

> Periodically, there was further news about the "self-
> organizing" issue but it never seemed to come to anything.
There's your first clue. Periodically. You can't watch
ICANN that way, it is like trying to tame a snake and
then putting it in your pocket while you go for coffee.
Bad, very bad.

> Now I feel like a complete fool for having believed
> that the message from the ALSC and  all this talk
> about election of representatives and participation
> in ICANN committees meant this 'ICANN At Large' bore
> any relation to the "ICANN At Large" I joined two
> years ago.
I admit it is confusingly similar. How's about we
adopt the UDRP to clearly delineate between one at
large and another. Esther and Kent are known cyber-
squatters in the atlarge space with a history of
prior bad behavior, so we might even win,

> Sorry to have taken up so much of your time needlessly,
Not at all. As I said, I'm not a member, so SFAIK
I can't be captured to be some kind of posterboy
for the atlarge, although I do admit to being a
member (or whadyacallit) of that earlier election
effort run by, ya,,, you guessed it, Kent Crispin.
ICANN staffer and owner of the real honest to gh*d
one and only true blue at large here:
http://www.at-large.org/

Feel free to join up and vote early and often,
assuming they allow you any. You, and me, and
a hundred thousand others that got snookered.

ICANNWatching is not a periodic chore, as Yoda
said, do or do not, there is no try:
http://www.icannwatch.org/user.php?op=userinfo&uname=fnord
Accurate information is far more powerful than a
single vote online. We're not running a democracy
here, as M. Stuart Lynn said, or Benito Mussolini,
who ran the bits, sorry that should read trains,
on time. It is a meritocracy, If you have accurate,
believable, trustable information, I'll go there
for a pointer. If you don't, I won't. This doesn't
accurately map to any realworld experience, it is,
as my neighbor William Gibson says, cyberspace. Or,
as I prefer to see it, a cybersea. No matter what
you do online, it creates ripples that affect all
the others floating around like corks here. SFAICT
even Kent and Estherm, despite their exhalted status,
don't get that. Make good waves. Cheers, -g


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