Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling

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

Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,

todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; "James Love"
> <james.love@cptech.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
>
> > 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...
>
> And they should be. This, as a grass roots constituentcy has the possibility
> of as I said, being the first Global PAC.

  Well maybe you are not aware, but "Global PAC's" as you put it
already exist, though they are not called that.  We have one for instance,
although small presently, but wide ranged...  The biggest problem
with such "Global PAC's" is the huge amounts of $$ it takes to
effectively operate adequately...

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >

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