Re: [atlarge-discuss] anyone care to RALO?

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

Danny and all fellow members,

  First of all as you yourself have pointed out there is NO legitimate
panel for the ICANNATLARGE.ORG.

Secondly even if there were a  legitimate panel for the
ICANNATLARGE.ORG it has yet to be determined
if and to what degree it would or could actually represent
the members as many have stated clearly that is not
wanted.

Third, the RALO "Idea" that has been floated around like
something one might find in a toilette before flushing, cannot
in any reasonable sense be representative of the stakeholders/users
as outlined by the ALAC bunch and now seemingly anointed by
the ICANN BoD, with boardsquatters still on board...

  Need I go on further?

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Abel,
>
> While all of us are appreciative of the services that both you and Sotiris
> provided on behalf of the At-Large at Montreal, the issue is not the
> contribution of individuals to the process but rather the lack of fortitude/leadership of
> the elected Panel of icannatlarge.
>
> The subject of RALOs has been under discussion for close to a year.  We all
> have our opinions on this topic, but what is eminently clear is that:
>
> 1.  Even if you support the concept of RALOs, the current proposal makes no
> provision for the inclusion of global organizations such as icannatlarge --
> this square peg does not fit into the five round holes recommended by the ALAC --
> as such the proposal is flawed and the Panel should have issued a public
> statement to that effect.
> 2.  If you don't support the notion of RALOs, then assuredly a statement
> outlining the reasons for the organization's objections to the current plan should
> have been tendered.
>
> Silence on the part of the leadership of this group has resulted in the
> uncontested adoption of the ALAC recommendations by the ICANN Board.  Every member
> of this Panel should have known that the topic was under discussion and that a
> decision would be reached at the Montreal session.  To argue that there was
> simply not enough time to have the Panel as a whole agree on a statement is
> pure BS.  If this Panel can't be relied upon to formally present the views of its
> membership in a timely fashion, then it is less than useless.
>
> Will the Panel of this organization act to file a reconsideration request?
> It certainly has enough time to get that accomplished... or will it again
> proceed to do nothing?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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