Re: [atlarge-discuss] Democratic process (was Re: [atlarge-discuss]encouragement)

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

Norbert and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Norbert Klein wrote:

> Dear Joanna and others,
>
> though I take the opportunity of your posting, I am only using part of your
> posting for a concern I want to express also to others.
>
> Please try to avoid hints which are not generally understood, at least not
> on a mailing list which is supposed to be the place for an international
> membership, and not only for native speakers of English.
>
> What is this "several Oscar winning performances for drama queen of the
> year" - please use clear arguments for what you want to convey, and say whom you
> are criticizing for what. I do not want to be left to guess what you might,
> or might not have wanted to hint at.
>
> Others have used quite poetic expressions - they may be beautiful and deep,
> but I can only they "may be" - I often do not get the subtle meaning they may
> have, where I would like to see clear argument and reason.
>
> And "one member said they didn't understand what was happening" - are you
> referring to me and to one of my postings? Then say so.

  Norbert is quite right here.  All of us should take care as to be more
plainly specific as we are communicating with a broad spectrum of
members with different levels of understanding of the english language
even amongst native english speakers..

>
>
> Yes, I do not understand a lot of what is happening on this list recently,
> though I have been actively involved in ICANN affairs since pre-ICANN
> preparations in 1998, and then in the Non-Commecial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> suffering from being on the weak and losing end. And I was active in the
> struggle around the first at-large vote, trying to get a voince for those many
> netizens who are active users of the internet, but who do not have the
> financial resources (or the technological environment) to use the web, but who can
> use only e-mail and mailing lists and newsgroups.
>
> But since soon after the Accra meeting - when we were about 700 on this
> ICANNatlarge.com list - I really do not understand a lot of what is going on
> here, delaying this organization to be able to act on the ongoing issues of
> ICANN, where the broad participation envisioned at the beginning by the US
> government is loosing out.
>
> Now the US DoC has given ICANN another year. But the detail is very clear:
> the DoC is criticizing that the present ICANN leadership has not taken in the
> stakeholders voices sufficiently.

  Good point here Norbert.  And one that many have missed entirely in the
"New MoU" as well as the stated position of DOC/NTIA expressed
by Nancy J Victory.  See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/icann_09192002.htm

> We - icannatlarge.com as the only worldwide
> at-large body listed on a ICANN web site - are invited by the US DoC to
> WORK. I hope we can start to do so when the discussion on the name is over. And I
> hope it will be a name which says that this is an organization which tries
> to hold the position originally envisioned for an at-large membership in
> ICANN, to provide the ballance between other stakeholders and the at-large users.

  Here Norbert I think you may have a slight misunderstanding.  That being
that there is not "Balance" to be achieved, but rather that "Other stakeholders"
and "At-large users" are on a level playing field.  As to actual representation
in this respect, stakeholders/users are the largest yet most underrepresented
of all stakeholders.  This cannot continue as DOC/NTIA have made
pretty clear.  Therefore, it should and can be our duty and challenge to
rectify that problem inequity which the current ICANN leadership
created and has also recently re-imposed.

>
>
> If we are a 1000 member body which tries to speak for the 500.000.000 users
> of the internet in general, I will be out. And I will again concentrate on
> trying to work so that the ICANN process is called back to its original
> mandate.

  Understood.

>
>
> Norbert
>
> > Richard,
> > You are entitled to your opinion, but with the greatest respect, that's
> > all
> > it is, your opinion. I have already explained that the Watchdogs
> > considered
> > an ICANN (pre-your time) precedent in making their decision, so this
> > wasn't
> > an arbitrary solution being suggested, it had a basis, so please tone down
> > the rhetoric and avoid loaded words like corruption. It's not helpful.
> > What
> > would have been helpful is if the Panel had actually got together and
> > answered to the Watchdogs suggestion formally, either by agreeing the
> > Watchdog decision, or overruling it, giving grounds for reasons. Instead,
> > we
> > are being subjected to several Oscar winning performances for drama queen
> > of
> > the year. Not surprisingly, one member said they didn't understand what
> > was
> > happening and to deny Jamie's statement is to call both of us a liar. I
> > have
> > many faults, but lying isn't one of them.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:37 PM
> > > To: Joanna Lane; James Love; micheal@beethoven.com
> > > Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; espresso@e-scape.net
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Democratic process (was Re:
> > > [atlarge-discuss]encouragement)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > >
> > > > However, in this case, the Panel did not give the Watchdogs any
> > > > formal response to approve or disapprove their recommended course of
> > > action,
> > > > which is why we now have some confusion as to what is happening.
> > >
> > > There is NO confusion over what is happening.
> > >
> > > The panel has not mandated any change to the timing of anything, and
> > > therefore the timing remains the same. Any alterations to votes AFTER
> > the
> > > stipulated deadline are invalid.
> > >
> > > There is no confusion over the vote and its democratic outcome,
> > > because the
> > > vote has been called and as a democratic organisation we respect
> > > the result.
> > >
> > > I personally hope it is NOT Icannatlarge.org/com because I do not
> > > want to be
> > > tainted by the name of a corrupt organisation. Nevertheless, it
> > > is the will
> > > of the majority which must and will prevail.
> > >
> > > The suggestion of extending the deadline was roundly criticised both by
> > > members and panelists, and was a non-starter (because you could not get
> > a
> > > panel majority to agree to the extension). The Watchdogs were not
> > mandated
> > > or empowered to change the timescale of the election and therefore their
> > > suggestion was only that - a suggestion. A suggestion which was not
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I do not think "we now have some confusion as to what is happening".
> > >
> > > Let's be absolutely transparent and clear about this. The ballot
> > > consists of
> > > those votes which were correctly submitted within the agreed timeframe.
> > >
> > > You couldn't have a situation in Florida where the Presidential
> > > election was
> > > extended for a few days to enable people to think again and change their
> > > minds (in order to manipulate a different outcome). No more can we have
> > a
> > > ballot and then ask people to think again and change their minds.
> > >
> > > Its a preposterous manipulation of a voting procedure. Even raising a
> > new
> > > agenda (the "we'll be sued" agenda) in the middle of a vote is an
> > > unwelcome
> > > interference with the process. So I hope and trust there is no confusion
> > > whatsoever, and this has all been a storm in a teacup, and that the
> > > Watchdogs can confirm transparently that the deadline was NOT extended
> > and
> > > no late votes or alterations were accepted.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Richard Henderson
> > >
> > > There is no confusion as to what is happening, unless someone has
> > > corrupted
> > > the process.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
>
> --
> Norbert Klein
> Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh
>
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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