Re: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 003 - Update and Action List

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Dear James:

    My message was not meant to be an indictment of the Panel.  It was a
serious response to your suggestion that the multi-level outreach plan that
Richard is promoting would fail, because similar attempts by other
organizations had failed.

    I believe that we have every reason to succeed, and that we will
succeed.  However, we do need to have either the Panel or an active WG that
will respond to each serious issue raised by the membership.

    What are we doing about a stance on "transfers"?  This is a horrible
thorn in the side of many of the Internet @large.  They may not be actually
registering their own domains, or renewing them, or trying to transfer them,
but the user suffers (sometimes in spectacularly distressing ways) when the
system fails. Other groups are taking this issue seriously and will present
opinions and proffer solutions at the ICANN conference.

    What are we doing in Shanghai?  Do we even know who is attending, much
less what their mission is or what they are to present themselves as.  I
suspect that the answer from some of the members will be...  "no-one from
the Panel or the Membership list has any authority to represent our
organization, officially or unofficially", and therefore must attend the
conference, incognito.

    My recent plea to the Panel to develop and present to the membership, a
time-line for specific urgent actions, went without response.  I suggested a
time-line for the presentation, discussion, evaluation and adoption of a
constitution.  The only response was from another member, who wanted to
initiate a debate on semantics.  I had earlier proposed a resolution giving
the Panel total authority to complete their mandated tasks, without
hindrance, in exchange for a firm completion time-line of their choosing,
and a weekly progress report.  The Panel response was...  silence.

    I am delighted to read that you believe the panel could resolve the
organizational issues within two months, "if we want to".  Does this imply
that we "might not want to"?  Two months, James, takes us to the middle of
December.  If the Panel can complete all the work that you have listed by
the middle of November, why is no one prepared to concur with my suggestion
that the Constitution, or whatever it ends up being called, be ratified by
the end of November?

    From the point of view of a simple member, who is totally committed to
our cause, I am concerned that it has taken six months so far to get to the
point where we can actually do something in the next two months.  "If we
want to".

    Please let Richard move ahead with his WG-OUTREACH and encourage others
to promote active WGs, while the Panel addresses the organizational
structure.  At least that way, we can "reach out" with work-in-progress
rather than promise. And, satisfy those who are pleading for a formal
organization.

Sincerely, Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 003 - Update and Action List


> Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >     I happen to believe that our cause is good and that the issues  that
we
> > should work to resolve are valid, and resolvable.  If we can only get
the
> > panel or a WG to discuss and resolve one issue at a time (in an
appropriate
> > workspace) we will have already taken a giant leap forward.  When that
> > happens, and Richard is setting a fine example with his WG-OUTREACH, I
will
> > have no difficulty in starting a viral outreach program in the
Caribbean.
> >
> >     However, as long as there is little or no response from the panel,
to
> > serious questions raised by the membership, we have very little of value
to
> > reach out with.
>
> Ron
>
>      I agree that the panel has not done a lot to make things work.
> Realistically, the election was right before August, a terrible time to
get
> things done, and the panel members themselves don't really have much of a
> working relatship with each other so far, and it is possible things will
> move along a bit, although given some of the missives posted to the list,
> who knows.
>
>      But there is also going to be some difficultly in finding common
ground
> on substantive issues.  People act as this will be trivial, but it won't
be.
>   It may be the case that some issues regarding process or transparency
will
> be easly for us, but other issues are likely to be more difficult.
>
>       My own preferences is to focus on solving the munane organizational
> stuff first,...... control over web page, bylaws, incorporation, opening
> bank account, sovling verification of membership issue for voting.  THese
> are all practical problems, and if we really wanted to, these could all be
> "solved" with two months.
>
>   Jamie
>
>
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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