DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
Jamie,
Before you begin questioning the relationship between established user
organizations and ICANN, you might want to ask if your own group, without any
organizational documents, without even a mission statement, bylaws or
charter, even qualifies as an organization suitable for recognition as an
at-large structure.
Perhaps a dis-organization, then? Especially of late.
Before I received this email from Danny, I was about to post a link to the list
directing all of you to a mock-up web site which Hans requested I put together
(even though I had ALREADY set up the PHPNuke site for all of you to view a
couple months ago! Remember that ladies and gentlemen?!? Check the archives, if
you like...). However, having read Danny's email I stopped myself and decided to
visit the Panel's closed list archive for a look at how our leaders are going
about the business of this "organization". Much to my surprise, I saw a motion
from Jamie Love (seconded by Hans Klein) to make Brett Faussett the new
webmaster. No offense against Brett, but where's he been for the last couple
months? I didn't hear him volunteering his services when a new webmaster was
being sought. Or, ( as is probably the case) is this some kind of a compromise
selection to placate Joop? In any case, if this is the direction the Panel
wishes to take, then I wish them all the power in the world. However, I cannot
for a moment understand why the WG-Web members (of which I am one) were not
consulted?
As per the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform's Second Interim
Implementation Report: "We agree that individual at large entities should
meet some "accreditation" standard, and we find the criteria and standards
recommended by the Assistance Group to be an attractive list."
This "list" stipulates structured, self-sustaining entities that engage in
outreach and post current information about the organization's aims,
structure, constituents, working mechanisms, and current leadership.
1. Your aims are not posted
To date I submitted TWO different versions of Mission Statements for this
organization (both several months ago) which elicited next to no comments, and
yet there is still no substantive work produced by the 'power elite' among us on
this issue. Shameful. This and the webmaster issue noted above are enough to
put off persons (such as myself) who are willing to contribute substantively...
2. You have no organizational structure
Oh, but we do... dis-organization.
3. You are not self-sustaining
If bombast and self-important bluster were the fuel of the day, I'd say we're
self-perpetuating rather than self-sustaining.
4. You have no established working mechanisms or procedures for the general
membership
Why bother, that would detract from the nominal importance of our Panel
Members... BTW, Danny, have you perhaps heard anything from that champion of the
common netizens, Satyajit Gupta? I wonder if the other Panel Members approve of
his delinquency? If not, then why are there no steps being taken to replace him?
5. You can't document any organizational outreach activities
Well, you might have something there. Perhaps Richard Henderson can fill us in
on the progress towards the 100, 000 membership base he promised.
After you get your own house in order, then feel free to question the
relationship of ISOC chapters to ICANN -- they at least meet the minimum
criteria expected for an at-large structure.
Except for the fact that they are now a Registry operator, which puts them in the
gTLD constituency...
Seriously Disappointed,
Sotiris Sotiropoulos