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

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

Keep me posted, Chris - I'm interested in participating in your group as
well as this one - what matters is the outcome - the outcome will need to
demonstrate democratic accountability, even if a founder sets out his/her
stall first to kick-start things into motion. I've been considering doing
the same myself if this organisation gets too narrow. There's no shame
belonging to several groups. The proof is in the results. Whichever group
attracts substantial membership and becomes a force for ordinary internet
users is worth supporting, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm equally interested in an alternative group built along the lines of
Jefsey's www.atlarge
structures, if such a group was launched.

As Jefsey says: there can be 1000's of groups
As Danny says: we're ALL the AtLarge

At the same time, with a bit more patience this group icannatlage.org (hate
the name) has a foundation on which to build

It's wait and see time, and get on and do time, and we'll find out later who
achieved something substantial

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-DNS name protection


> 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
>


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