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

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I agree with Sotiris on this - the motion to choose Bret as new webmaster
appears to have been presented without consultation with the WG-Web members,
without consultation about all options with the membership, and without
clarification about what domain we are actually going to make our webpages
resolve to.

On the subject of attracting 100,000 members - that is work for ALL of us -
I simply offered a vision of what I thought would be possible - dependent on
the way we structure our website and the scope we set for our mission... if
we're just about internal icann politics, then why should many people be
interested in joining.

The narrower our mission is defined, the less likely we are to achieve
substantial membership, because we will most likely end up talking to
ourselves.

But returning to the question of the webmaster - I have asked for the motion
to be postponed or cancelled, because as Sotiris says, the proper processes
of consultation have not been undertaken - the motion has just been sprung
on us and I think (for the time being) it needs to be rejected.

As a panel-member, I apologise to Sotiris for the (hopefully unintended)
discourtesy of this motion.

Equally, we obviously need to formally list our options and consult as soon
as possible, because Joop has asked to be relieved and he served us notice,
and we are overdue.

I suggest we publish to the discuss list:

1. A final request for volunteer webmasters
2. A subsequent list of people who have volunteered.
3. A statement from each volunteer, setting out their vision and what they
think they can offer.
4. Invite comments from the membership on the pros and cons of those
volunteers.
5. Consider whether this should be a panel vote or a membership vote.

THEN carry out a vote.

There should also be a secondary discussion on WHICH domain name our
webpages resolve to:
for example:
icannatlarge.org or www.atlarge.org (possibly developing the intuitive
structure proposed by Jefsey)
In many ways, THIS decision should come first, because it may influence the
kind of webmaster or webmasters we attract, and indeed, the www.atlarge.org
structure may not appeal to a particular webmaster

It's a more subtle and complicated matter than saying: Let's vote for Bret.

Richard

----- 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 7:15 PM
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