RE: [atlarge-discuss] a legitimate election?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Gary,
I agree with you. It's a pity you're not standing for election.

Regards,
Joanna


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Osbourne [mailto:gro@direct.ca]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:16 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] a legitimate election?
> 
> 
> At 01:20 AM 15/07/02 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> >We don't each other very well, so please hear me out
> 
> No, we don't, but for the record I do know enough about
> what you say in general via the ga list, as well as here.
> I don't normally disagree (even to myself) with what you
> say. I didn't even intend to specifically disagree with
> you in my recent response. By all means, set up a list
> for members only, or change this one to be that way,
> 
> I just found it ironic that this depleting of limited
> resources sounds much like Stuart Lynn's complaint,
> that there is too much process, that ICANN is a
> debating club. It is more than ironic, it plays into
> ICANN's hands as I say, because that is arguably all
> this list does.
> 
> >If an individual voluntarily gifts specific resources
> >for specific purposes, but the ExCom squanders them,
> >then the donor could reasonably withdraw, and
> >everybody loses out.
> 
> I think the original donators to the atlarge effort
> knew what they were doing, that the resources would
> be squandered, that nothing would come of it, that
> it would become another IDNO. This can't be blamed
> on non-members, nor even on average members.
> 
> Another reason I did not sign on was due to the
> differentiations amongst members, who is or isn't
> a domain owner, who is or isn't willing to donate.
> This was there from the beginning, there was already
> a hierarchy in place. After the initial flush the
> membership has flatlined for the last couple of
> months. I fully expect a very low turnout in the
> upcoming election which will further bring this
> effort into disrepute. That is the responsibility
> of the existing hierarchy, not average members,
> and certainly not non-members such as myself.
> 
> It is all very well to say go away and build your
> own, this just further insulates the hierarchy from
> reality. The reality is that this effort is in
> danger of becoming completely irrelevant, some
> would say that point has already arrived.
> 
> When that becomes blindingly obvious perhaps I will
> set something up. If so, it would all be donated, I
> wouldn't charge a penny. For example, even as a non-
> member, I would have donated the server space for
> the website if the opportunity to do so had arisen,
> I suspect various of the members would have been
> willing and able to do the same. Ditto for the
> coding. The current hierarchy seems to know the
> price of everything and the value of nothing.
> 
> Attempting to turn internet governance issues to
> one's personal or financial advantage is precisely
> what is most wrong with ICANN. Instead of learning
> from that, instead of making use of its own
> potentially rich resources, this effort also
> artificially limits them, then fights over the
> crumbs. Though predictable, I find that quite sad. -g
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de