[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Membership Lists, Thomas Roessler, distance from ICANN
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Lists, Thomas Roessler, distance from ICANN
- From: "Richard Henderson" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 16:23:18 +0100
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
HelpI'd like to re-assert that I think details of membership lists should be limited to the elected panel, and only extended to our webmaster or mailing-list administrator if we feel sure that they maintain a real distance from ICANN, a corrupt organisation which in my view cannot be trusted at all.
This leads me to request further details about Thomas Roessler, who I believe is administering our mailing lists for us. Firstly I'd like to say that I appreciate his readiness to support us in this way, and my concerns are not a personal reflection on Thomas as I do not know him.
However, in the context of my lack of knowledge about Thomas and my responsibilities to our membership, I would really appreciate input - the views of the panel and the broader membership - on the appropriateness of Thomas as mailing-list administrator.
My request for advice centres around this: Is he too close in function or sympathies to ICANN for him to act as guardian of our membership lists and mailing lists without compromise? Assuming Thomas's personal integrity, does it send out a negative message to be seen to be forming a "dependency" that is somehow ICANN-linked by association with Thomas? And what is understood to be Thomas's position on ICANN's recent abandonment of democratic representation on the Board? Is he /has he been prepared to denounce the abolition of Board members elected by the At Large?
Clearly people may belong to our organisation with many, varied and divergent views - however I would like reassurance that we are maintaining a clear distance from ICANN and from ICANN sympathisers, particularly when it involves confidential membership details and the administration of our mailing lists or website.
OK I'm just being honest here. It's not a personal attack. I'm just interested in our own Agenda (which must be kept separate from ICANN). I'm concerned that Thomas may be the wrong person to administer our communications. I'd be glad to be corrected if loads of members storm to his defence. I just want clarification. Sorry Thomas.