[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
- To: "Joop Teernstra" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
- From: "todd glassey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:34:09 -0700
- Cc: "James Love" <email@example.com>, "atlarge discuss list" <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
- References: <200205310123.AA210108662@mail.beethoven.com> <200205302140.AA293732544@mail.beethoven.com> <200205302138.AA198508790@mail.beethoven.com> <20020531080234.GP27077@yoda.does-not-exist.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Joop - No matter what commentary you came up with below the first time a US
Congressman gets a call from the At Large membership group and it has 10K +
US members the DoC will very quickly start rethinking its ICANN alone
stance. The DoC is easily swayed by one thing and that is the American
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <email@example.com>
To: "todd glassey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "James Love" <email@example.com>; "atlarge discuss list"
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
> At 06:33 a.m. 2/06/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> >DNSO could easily swamp ICANN if it ever got its act together.
> ICANN has the IANA function and the MoU with DoC.
> ICANN has the funding from the gTLD registry tax.
> 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
> Only an automated streamlining of the procedures, such as was proposed
> 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'.
> 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
> the big corporate interests now dominating the Names Council would still
> 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
> >behind a real charter, and start getting active here in the US as a PAC
> >not just an independent Internet Only Working Group.
> If I was ICANN I would see the above scenario for my DNSO as my biggest
> What I would really fear is a completely independent At Large driven by
> real Individual concerns.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com