Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling

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

Joop and all stakeholders of interested parties,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 06:33 a.m. 2/06/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> >DNSO could easily swamp ICANN if it ever got its act together.
>
> Hmm.
> ICANN has the IANA function and the MoU with DoC.

  Yes it does, but it hasn't functioned properly from the outset...

>
> ICANN has the funding from the gTLD registry tax.

  Yes amongst other areas as well such as Constituency
dues and Registration fees...

>
> ICANN can do with a 9 person staff and remain nimble on its feet ,but the
> DNSO, to be legitimate as a stakeholder body, must lumber itself with a
> large Registrant "parliament" slowed down by democratic on-line procedures.

  Online procedures slows nothing down.  People do that.

>
>
> Only an automated streamlining of the procedures, such as was proposed with
> The Polling Booth with its procedural charter , would mean that the DNSO
> would become a real influence.
> I guess this is what you mean by 'getting its act together'.

  Maybe not the "Polling Booth" but a online voting mechanism that
is legitimate, yes.

>
>
> But it would be an intensely political body. Nobody would be sure of the
> ultimate allegiance of candidates for office. If it would start making
> deals with the GAC, the ccSO, US Congress and the EU, the lobbying power of
> the big corporate interests now dominating the Names Council would still be
> undiminished.

  How so?

>
>
> Its main function would be to provide ICANN and its operations with
> glasnost and legitimacy.
>
> >It represents
> >the only large group of voters that are capable of participating as
> >individuals in the Internet Process. This is a very serious issue since
> >there are so many fracturing influences in the DNSO.
>
> Think this through a bit more, Todd.
>
> >If I was ICANN I would run in fear that DNSO would achieve a real membership
> >behind a real charter, and start getting active here in the US as a PAC and
> >not just an independent Internet Only Working Group.
>
> If I was ICANN I would see the above scenario for my DNSO as my biggest hope.
>
> What I would really fear is a completely independent At Large driven by
> real Individual concerns.

  I find an independent At-Large as PART of the ICANN structure as
the best hope for stakeholders/users.  So we are at opposite ends
of the ideological spectrum on this point.  I believe that it was made
very clear in several months ago that the ICANNATLARGE.COM
wished to be an independent structure but within or part of ICANN
itself.  And that is clearly what it needs to be IMHO...

>
>
> --Joop
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 124k 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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