Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling

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

Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,

todd glassey wrote:

> 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
> Voting Public.

  How true Todd.  Especially during an election year, which 2002 is as
some here know.  We [INEGroup] have found that a number of
congressmen in key states, are particularly attentive of late...

>
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> 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.
> >
> > Hmm.
> > 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
> procedures.
> >
> > 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'.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --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