[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Blueprint Passes
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Blueprint Passes
- From: Izumi AIZU <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:41:46 +0900
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <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: <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks Alex and Esther for sharing the latest info.
I had to leave Bucharest early this morning around 5:30 AM,
and thus could not monitor the last moment there.
I am now at the Paris CDG airport lounge to transfer to Tokyo.
Anyway, I think the At-Large Advisory Committee idea is
not in anyway the best or ideal, and since all the details are
not discussed or showed at all, it is understandable to deny
this and call for direct representation and participation.
I would take the same stand if I were in Accra, though. But it
is also very apparent that the Board clearly rejected the
direct election approach in Accra. And the ERC in its final report
and blue print did not even mention the participatory mechanism
which the Board endorsed in their resolution in Accra.
With these facts as background, there are two approaches left I think.
One is still try to engage "inside" ICANN, meaning accepting the majority
decision (of the Board and of the community there) and behave within the
given and make further effort to realize what we think the best.
Another is go "outside" of ICANN and rally, lobby, target ICANN to change using
I am, at least for the timing being, still thinking the first approach
has some value. I may be very wrong. But I am not convinced (yet)
to take the second approach only. They are not mutually exculsive.
If the first approach completely fails, then I would either take the
second one or I might simply leave. I don't know.
ICANN is not the only game in town for us.
It is a difficult situation and difficult judgment. I hope those
who stand with the principle of direct representation and participation
will not simply deny the other approach who still think direct representation
and participation is the goal.
The difference to me is not the goal, but how to reach there.
I accidentally met with Jamie this morning in the hotel lobby,
at 5:30 AM. And we kind of agreed or at least understood
that we share the same goal.
I share all the frustrations and complaints and even angers with
him or with you.
But I also like to add that these emotions be directed to the right
target; please do not shoot your (potential) friends from behind
and leave the real target intact.
It is important now to raise awareness to wider audience
than on this list, let them join icannatlarge.com and coming
election. We really need good, fresh and capable members
to establish and run this organization. That is a challenge.
(I will be mostly "off-line" for the weekend)
At 10:14 02/06/28 +0300, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>At 28.06.2002 03:03, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >But the motion included support for the creation of an At-Large Advisory
> >Esther Dyson
> >At 02:42 AM 6/28/2002, Lawrence Solum wrote:
> >>The Blueprint motion just passed with minor amendments.
>http://log.does-not-exist.org/ has the Blueprint motion
>(without amendments to the *motion* made during the
>Board meeting which are in my notes at
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
>For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org