Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fwd: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections

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

Hans and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Who's summary is this?  Yours perhaps?  Or ???

Hans Klein wrote:

> Here is a summary of comments by ALOC members that the ALOC include a
> statement indicating its support for At Large elections.
>
> Hans
>
> >Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:02:25 -0400
> >To: aloc@at-large.org
> >From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >Subject: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections
> >
> >Dear ALOC,
> >
> >Below are comments from numerous ALOC members supporting a statement in
> >support of elections. Those comments are from:
> >         Peter Shane
> >         Vittorio Bertola
> >         Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >         Esther Dyson
> >         Izumi Aizu
> >         Naavi India
> >         Hans Klein
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge, no committee member has opposed inclusion of
> >a statement on elections.
> >
> >Denise, our facilitator, has indicated opposition (I believe.)  However,
> >even though Denise is paid to do a *lot* of the work for this group, the
> >committee members alone are responsible for its content.
> >
> >I believe it is appropriate to declare that the committee has consensus on
> >this issue.
> >
> >Hans
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:59:23 -0400
> >>To: aloc@at-large.org
> >>From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >>Subject: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
> >>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
> >>
> >>
> >>Denise,
> >>
> >>Concerning version 2.0 of the discussion draft, I think we do need to
> >>acknowledge contradictory nature of our task.
> >>
> >>The user community does not support the elimination of user
> >>representation on the Board.  If I am wrong about that, please point me
> >>to some reference!   :-)  So the ERC blueprint is very problematic.
> >>
> >>As we participate in ICANN/ERC processes, we should clearly indicate that
> >>we do not endorse the elimination of user representation.  Only then can
> >>we plunge into the details.
> >>
> >>After Bucharest some people expressed concern to me that the ALOC
> >>spokespeople gave the impression that we accept the elimination of users
> >>representation.  It is vital not to advocate -- or even to appear to
> >>advocate -- such a position.
> >>
> >>The text in Version 2.0 of the Discussion Draft acknowledges this
> >>contradiction.  We state our support for user representation, even as we
> >>contribute to the ERC process.  I believe that is consistent with the
> >>positions of individuals in this group as well as the larger user community.
> >>
> >>Hans
> >
> >>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
> >>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:30:07 -0400
> >>From: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>
> >>To: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, aloc@at-large.org
> >>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
> >>Originator-Info:
> >>login-token=Mulberry:01z3GFrj/k7Q8P4dQlGvH8HSLO/NpV3BL91PIjz+H4Nw==;
> >>  token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu
> >>X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32)
> >>
> >>I agree with Hans that we ought to say something about this, if only to
> >>make clear that we do not agree with taking elections off the table.  The
> >>ONLY feedback I've had from constitutents of InSITeS since Bucharest has
> >>been, why bother doing this if elections are already out of the question?
> >>We do not have to be advocates for elections, but we should indicate that
> >>we are not endorsing the framework within which we are agreeing to
> >>provide input.
> >>
> >>--On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:59 PM -0400 Hans Klein
> >><hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
> >>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:47:40 -0400
> >>From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> >>Organization: Hermes Network, Inc.
> >>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-SYMPA  (Win98; U)
> >>X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
> >>To: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>
> >>Cc: aloc@at-large.org
> >>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
> >>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
> >>
> >>I completely concur with Hans and Peter.  From all the discussions I've
> >>had with
> >>fellow members of ICANNAtLarge.com, there has not been a single statement
> >>made
> >>in support of eliminating elections.  As the representative of
> >>ICANNAtLarge.com
> >>on this committee, I refuse to lend my organization's support to any
> >>intimation
> >>(direct or implied) of de facto acceptance of the elimination of elections by
> >>user groups.  I think this committee needs to take a firm stand on this
> >>issue.
> >>Denise, you cannot simply dismiss this or claim consensus without
> >>including this
> >>viewpoint.
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>         ICANNAtLarge.com
> >
> >At 07:31 PM 7/23/2002 -0400, Peter Shane wrote:
> >>The point, I think, is not to "keep pushing for ideas that the ICANN
> >>board keeps rejecting," but to say something, however briefly, that
> >>preserves the ALOC's credibility with external constituencies.  Denise's
> >>approach of advocating constructive suggestions for structure and process
> >>is the right one, but, if we don't at least reserve our objection (as
> >>lawyers like to say) to the ERC approach, there are many who will simply
> >>regard the ALOC as a running dog of something or other.
> >
> >
> >>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
> >>From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
> >>To: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >>Cc: aloc@at-large.org
> >>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
> >>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:50:21 +0200
> >>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
> >>
> >>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:59:23 -0400, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >After Bucharest some people expressed concern to me that the ALOC
> >> >spokespeople gave the impression that we accept the elimination of users
> >> >representation.  It is vital not to advocate -- or even to appear to
> >> >advocate -- such a position.
> >>
> >>I agree. There is much sensitivity to this point in the community.
> >>
> >> >The text in Version 2.0 of the Discussion Draft acknowledges this
> >> >contradiction.  We state our support for user representation, even as we
> >> >contribute to the ERC process.  I believe that is consistent with the
> >> >positions of individuals in this group as well as the larger user
> >> community.
> >>
> >>I think that Hans's approach is a reasonable compromise between the
> >>need to be constructive in the present scenario and the need to report
> >>correctly the principles which are prevailing in the user community at
> >>this time. Trying to omit the fact that the almost totality of the
> >>user community would still prefer ICANN to stick to the original At
> >>Large plan, rather than to any flavour of the Blueprint, would simply
> >>nullify the credibility of the ALOC.
> >>--
> >>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> >
> >
> >
> >>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:11:30 +0900
> >>To: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>,
> >>         Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
> >>From: Izumi AIZU <izumi@anr.org>
> >>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
> >>Cc: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>, aloc@at-large.org
> >>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
> >>
> >>Sorry to join this late.
> >>
> >>I mostly agree with what Hans started to point out on election and
> >>Vittorio suggested.
> >>
> >>Perhaps one of the important tasks for ALAC is to visit this issue
> >>of election and make recommendations for workable and pragmatic
> >>solution in not hasty way. I believe that some members of the board at least
> >>did agree with the value and need for election in general, but they did not
> >>accept the specific proposal made by the ALSC and the AtLarge advocates
> >>in Accra that were not sufficient against capture and cost issues for them.
> >>
> >>Revising this immediately at ALAC may cause some concern for those
> >>who do not like the idea of election anyway, but it is still worth
> >>to consider it as one of the (better) way of public participation.
> >>
> >>ALAC's task should not be only election issues, and we need to
> >>state that clearly, but election should be one of the main areas,
> >>I would suggest.
> >>
> >>best,
> >>
> >>izumi
> >
> >
> >>On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:10 PM -0400 Esther Dyson
> >><edyson@edventure.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>We should state that there is widespread support for elections, because
> >>that is true, but we should also give advice on what the committee should
> >>do and how it should operate within ICANN *now.* TO the extent we or
> >>anyone speaks to the US Government, there may be a different, more
> >>radical message to send. But I do not think the committee should wait
> >>for elections to become active.
> >>Esther
> >
> >From: "Naavi_india" <naavi_india@hotmail.com>
> >To: <aloc@at-large.org>,
> >"Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections
> >Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:24:00 +0530
> >Dear Friends,
> >I am also one of those who strongly believe that "Netizen's Representation
> >to ICANN through an election process" should be considered a fundamental
> >principle that should not be compromised. I do understand the practical
> >difficulties but believe that the ICANN management is trying to manipulate
> >the process to eliminate the election process permanently.
> >ALOC seems to be playing into the hands of the vested interests.
> >I had sent the following response to the list which some how did not get
> >reported. I am sending it again for your information.
> >(Dear Nn Hans, please post this to the list as there seems to be some
> >problem with the list accepting my postings).
> >Naavi
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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