Re: [atlarge-discuss] Further note from http://aggregator.does-not-exist.org/

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

YJ and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Thank you for this brief, YJ.  However some of our members
in Shanghai today called me and did indicate some differences
with part of you and it seems Marc's brief you provided here.
(further comments in line with YJ's from our INEGroup members
in Shanghai)

YJ Park wrote:

> FYI. From http://aggregator.does-not-exist.org/
>
> Meeting of the at-large folks: Brief overview by YJ Park on the background:
> 2000 elections of five at-large directors, under the condition that more
> directors would be elected later; at-large study committee and their
> recommendations, Ghana decisions. Present situation: No guarantee on whether
> or not there will be at-large directors in the new ICANN.

  Yes our members attending had gotten much the same impression
here as well.  This of course met with some serious concerned
thinking yet again...

> Nominating
> Committee process with ALAC sending some of the committee members. Brief
> historical background on icannatlarge.org: Interim panel after the Ghana
> meeting, second election (11 panel members) in August.

  YJ is partly mistaken here as ICANNATLARGE.ORG does not
resolve presently and hasn't sense Hans Kline questionably acquired
the DN.  This is ongoing for now 5 days.  Hence as James   Love
pointed out on the NCDHNC list, ICANNATLARGE.ORG is
in disarray present to say the least.

>
>
> >From the board, Nii Quaynor and Andy Mueller-Maguhn attend. Andy on ICANN:
> Board originally about a balance between users and providers. 9-to-9
> situation suggested in the original bylaws: 9 elected by at-large, 9 elected
> by SOs, and a CEO on the board. More background about the 2000 elections. On
> his time as a director: People may have expected him to be fundamental
> opposition. However, best way is to be constructive, getting some influence
> on the outcome of the process. Make sure they mention user interests.

  Mention of users interests is by no means nearly enough as our
attending members pointed out YJ.  Hence such a assemblance of
being constructive is in essence the opposite.  ICANN is trying to
erode user interests or otherwise disenfranchise Stakeholders/Users
in any manner possible.

>
> Intellectual Property got into the process very early; freedom of speech and
> privacy are not in. Balance is missing.

  Indeed true here...

> USG more affected by industry
> lobbies than by civil rights folks. Don't overestimate the board. Real
> power: CEO, staff, lawyers. Real discussions only in conspiracy evening
> dinner, not in public board sessions.

  Our members attending also mentioned this to me as well.  However
this sort of thing has always been ICANN's way of doing business.
Hardly a good one though...

>
>
> Nii Quaynor: Comes from a community which can hardly be represented by the
> DNSO's more powerful constituencies. How to find participation mechanisms
> for them. Strong barriers - legal, fiscal, process and system, sometimes you
> don't even get a visa. Geographic diversity is crucial, include staff. Is
> member of the ERC. Is more comfortable with small changes. Expected small
> tweaks, turned out to be big, fundamental changes. Hard to keep up for his
> community. Don't change too many variables at the same time.

  Nii a good fellow is not in  the majority globally however.  Many
multitasking or changes at the same time are necessary from time
to time as was explained to him...

>
>
> YJ: After years of effort, no outcome. In the beginning, 9 directors were
> supposed to be there. Now: ALAC, but no guarantee that there are "at-large
> directors" through Nominating Committee process. How to get directors who
> care?

  One elects them carefully as our members attending put it...

>
>
> Esther on funding for ALAC: No guarantees in current reform proposals, but
> it's crucial. Andy: Funding unlikely. Discussions: Was at-large a good idea?
> GAC claims to represent users since represent elected governments.

  The GAC had to make this claim.  However unless those GAC members
are elected, which they are not presently as our members noted, than
they cannot legitimately represent anyone except the administrations
of their respective governments.

>
> Legitimacy question. At-large directors subject to strong questions on their
> legitimacy.

  Yes this was plainly evident especially sense Hans Kline claimed
that ICANNATLARGE.ORG sponsored the At-Large meeting,
which is did not and was noted by many in Shanghai, attending..

> His idea: Get NGOs into the structure just like there is
> intellectual property etc. Strong organizations around issues, not so much
> diverse groups of individuals.

  THis idea had been floated before as our attending members
noted.  Of course, such an idea is not any more legitimate
either.  Without individuals in and At-Large structure, and
central to that structure, not legitimate At-Large can actually exist.

> Question to person from the NTIA who
> participates in the meeting: MoU is vague. Some comments about what USG
> thinks about legitimacy? NTIA: MoU is about getting user groups more
> involved. It's not a blanket. Ass. Secy Victory met with many groups over
> the course of the reform process to come to conclusion. NTIA can't fix
> ICANN's problems. Not involved in ICANN's corporate governance. ICANN has
> one year to fix itself. It's up to ICANN and its constituencies. Current
> bylaws are a step in the right direction.

  Nancy is essentially correct as our attending members noted to me
in our phone conversation regarding this meeting.  However Nancy
is also off base on the point of the bylaws being a step in the right
direction.  This may be her opinion and perhaps for ICANN's survival
the only one that matters in the end, it is none the less not so.

> But lots of changes pending. NTIA
> open to listening to many entities. Esther: Involved with that kind of
> negotiation in the past. Like ICANN could cut off Verisign's air supply but
> never will, USG won't. USG can impose conditions on renewal.

  Our members expressed and interest in strict conditions if ICANN
is to be retained or even if another approach is considered at the end
of the current extension of the NTIA-ICANN Contracts..

> Right amount of
> pressure needs to apply. DoC: MoU for one year. Specific provision on tasks
> ICANN has to complete. Number of people looking at other options. Ass. Secy.
> is very strict. New way of looking at ICANN. Different US administration
> like the one when the first MoU was signed. You guys have to get together.
> Everyone is complaining. Nii: Involvement by just one govt may be part of
> the problem. International organizations? No level playing field at present.
> May be better to have network of networks instead of individual
> participation.

  Very accurate evaluation here according to our members attending...

>
>
> Roger Cochetti: Clarify perspective. VSGN has had an interest in at-large
> elections. Why? For Verisign, issue has much to do with accountability.
> Benefit to elections is less democracy by itself than that openly elected
> directors are forced to openly explain what they did and why. Elections are
> a powerful tool to enforce accountability. Some percentage of the board
> should be elected. Forces a lot of accountability.

  At-Large in accordance with Cohcetti's long standing positions do not
specifically jive with this contention as again our members expressed.
NTIA knows this full well also as our members noted...

> Have financially
> supported at-large efforts. Statement to ERC a few days ago indicated that
> one of the committee's mistakes was removal of elected board members in
> favor of closed-circuit nominating committee approach. Current approach
> reduces accountability of board members. ALAC doesn't do too much harm, but
> irrelevant to VSGN's objective.
>
> (Notetaker absent for some minutes.)
>
> Issues: ALAC participation in policy-development. This must happen as early
> as possible. Funding for the committee. Transition process.
>
> Role of governments; governance without governments? Esther: Representation?
> Maybe rather get different perspectives.
>
> (The Notebook)
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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