Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-DNS name protection

["NameCritic" <chris1@telnor.net>]

If what you say is true Sotiris, then I am disappointed as well. But these
lists have disappointed me in the past. Don't know why I thought this time
would be different. I'm going to file a domain name, build a website, write
a mission statement, file the paperwork for a nonprofit, and then seek
members who wish to help define the mission of the organization further. By
the way. ALl of that will take me about a week, because I also have projects
other than this that are a priority. It's shameful that this organization
has taken this long to do absolutely nothing.

At this point I have one member, me. When it's finished, I'll post about it.
Maybe others will join.

Tired of waiting on the panel here to make any, I repeat ANY substantive
recommendations that will get things rolling. Tired of arguing about simple
tasks. An organization is easiest done by a Founder, then it recruits
members who wish to aid in achieving the organization's goals. This whole
list process is about as backwards as it can be and as unproductive as it
can be. But as long as groups do things this way ICANN can continue to lower
the importance of these groups due to their lack of accomplishment for even
the simplest of tasks.

I have felt that my time here could be much better spent on surfing the web
for jokes. It wouldn't be any more of a laugh then this though.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <james.love@cptech.org>; <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>;
<richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <jefsey@club-internet.fr>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-DNS name protection


> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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