Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB: responses to Jamie

[Norbert Klein <nhklein@gmx.net>]

> Well I move that we ask the membership whether they want the word "ICANN"
> in
> our name - YES or NO
> 
> You can't have a much simpler question than that, and then I'd be happy to
> accept the democratic will more easily. At present I genuinely think there
> is ambiguity as to whether most of our members actually wanted ICANN in
> the name. I believe a coalition of not-have-Icann-in-the-name voters would
> actually outnumber those who wanted Icannatlarge.org, though of course I
> could be wrong.

So you want to create a DIFFERENT body from the one to which very quickly
about 700 persons subscribed, and then slowly the number increased to over 1000
- a body to fight for the implementation of bottom-up structures for ICANN,
now again even more, after the DoC criticized the ICANN board for not having
listened to the stakeholders sufficiently?

I committed myself to work for a better ICANN - the organ which will, for at
least another year, continue to be crucial for a lot of Internet
proceedings, whether one likes this or not.

Norbert

 
> A vote will clarify that point. I propose the motion:
> 
> Do you want the word "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO or Abstain
> 
> Richard

Now you find a reason to have another vote (and paralyze our organization
again for a while) - and after hat vote, somebody else may find another reasen
to have another vote. 

Any other strategy to have us diverted from the tasks for which many people
signed onto this list, which very clearly had ICANN in its name?

Norbert


-- 
Norbert Klein
Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh


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