Re: [atlarge-discuss] Issues

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

ALexander and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> there were a number of interesting points made in the
> thread about substantive issues. Here are some short
> responses to a few of them.
>
> At 25.07.2002 10:51, James Love wrote:
> >    Alexander, IMO, there are many "important" issues that you might not think are important.  I think transparency, (fiscal and policy) accountability, and the scope of ICANN's mission are big big issues, and also ones where many at large members may agree, even when they disagree about other "policy" issues.
> >
> >      Also, there are the issues that keep being surpressed, such as problems with the UDRP, the failure to allow more gTLDs, and the unwillingness to allow civil society groups to run their own TLDs (such as .union), or preventing the WHO from running .health or the UN from running .un, are important, to me.  But maybe they are not "important" to others.
>
> Except for the underhanded assumption that I "might not think"
> transparency, accountability and scope are unimportant (I might
> borrow Jeff William's "Sheeesh!" here), I agree. I never said
> that we should stop discussing these issues or the second set
> of issues you mention. I just warned not to fall into a trap:
> If we focus almost entirely on meta-issues, we are isolating
> ourselves from a large part of policy development and might
> not look too credible. If the message is "we want in!", that's
> fine, but we shouldn't stop there.

  Well said here Alex.  I agree with you for the most part.
I differ only in that we also cannot just ignore meta-issues
if they have an effect on stakeholders/users (And not just
Domain Name holders either).

>
>
> And yes, that has been a problem in the past. Despite lots of
> non-commercial groups being concerned about Whois issues, these
> groups have -- at least in my perception -- not been too vocal
> when the issue was up for discussion in the DNSO.

  Well the DNSO has been pretty much a rigged game as
you already know of course.  Hence with that and the fact
even the present members of the DNSO GA and other
constituencies blocked in one way or another from
proposing resolutions and motions by which the members
can than vote upon, it is obvious that participation in
the DNSO is almost a pointless or overly and unnecessarily
difficult endeavor.

>
>
> At 25.07.2002 16:10, Jkhan wrote:
> >I Disagree, "substantive domain name issues..." isn't the Big-picture
> >issue here.
>
> Maybe that's what I meant: We are all aware of the Big Picture
> and I believe we all agree that it is important. But if we are
> arguing that bottom-up process is important, how can we leave
> it there, looking at the Big Picture and not doing work from
> the bottom up?

  Good question.  And indeed we should not deny that allot
of work from the bottom-up in the ICANNATLARGE.COM
needs to be done instead of just discussed and debated
endlessly or seemingly so...

>
>
> At 26.07.2002 14:29, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >I do not agree with Alex that this is now the time to start discussing specific Domain issues in this Forum.
>
> I never said so.
>
> >These issues will not disappear, they are likely to get worse.
> >Our individual members can discuss these matters in the GA and show what they think there. The electorate should be able to watch them.
>
> That's where I disagree. I think the At-Large "thing" (whatever
> it turns out to be) should be involved in policy development
> on exactly that: *specific domain issues*.

  Only Domain name issues?

> We *should* have an
> opinion on the Redemption Grace Period and those who don't even
> know what that is should get up to speed (again, I'm not referring
> to Joop -- I'm sure he knows).

  I am not so sure that Joop does know.  But that is really not
all that important.  He can get up to speed if he really works
at it.  What is important IMHO, is that using your example
here, the Redemption Period indeed should be addressed
by our members.  Same however is true of the UDRP,
Whois, WLS, Ect, ect....

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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