[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Constituency

Dear Joop, Danny and Sotiris,
I think time has come to become realistic and your propositions IMHO go in the right way. The way I understand them are "building blocks":

1. Joop proposes a polling/voting foundation. He would "donate" and help improving his polling booth both for "straw polls" and "votes". With a Board of Trustees controlling the neutrality of the votes. Polling and Voting is of the essence for any e-community. On the middle range IMHO we need two systems. To foster some competitive innovation, to have a contingency plan so we do not depend on one person, but mostly to kill ad hominem disputes and because we are not paid for that so we cannot expend that much!

2. the same way, there is a need for one or several forums and wiki services. Joop has demonstrated that and established one. If Sotiris wants to provide another one, I think it would be great for the same reasons as above. A limited number of well accepted complementary services (see; below) can only help to build a culture.

3. I understand that Danny wants to develop a SME constituency as per the ERC. He prepared it brilliantly (should he think "international" :-) and asked me in the past if I would cooperate. I said yes, wholeheartedly. But my IDNO, BC and NCC experience leaves me hesitant on the best way. What we really need is to have are:

a) an NCC for (large) non-profit/universities (I have been barred from the NCC as being a BC).
b) a BC for large corps - not for sTLDs
c) an SME for businesses using Internet - what Danny perfectly proposes
d) an individual domain manager association (Joop: "manager" is the key (Jon Postel's) word)
c) an Internet Business (IB) for the people trying to make a business out of the Internet.

All these share many interests, so their promoters should ally to develop (if we must not confuse the issues - our past problem - we are too fewl to divide). Actually, the attitude of the BC does not help, but I feel that we could ally with Registrars against BC and lead the BC understand and ally with us. NCC is probably far more open and suffers fro the aftermath of the ERC.

4. I see that all this develops in the proper way, so we should really start the "atlarge/ws" project.

5. all these projects shares a common need: to get access to the @large membership list. IMHO the management of that list should be the responsibility of the Panel as elected by that list. This way the panel would accept the "@large" character of an initiative in giving access to the list. The Members would enlist knowing that (and may be chosing on which list they want/do not want to be). The Panel would maintain a very simple web site reporting on the Panel and linking the "@large endorsed" initiatives (with access or without access to the list). The Panelist would be used both as catalysts and arbitrators, with a vey low load making it manageable for them.

The list management would include the management of an "@large ID" in some way to discuss, so we may trust each others.


The poll has shown that only 3 Members were ready to start their own party - so there are people ready but no risk of mess. I suggest that all those like Joop, Danny, Sotiris ... ,and me for the atlarge/ws project, form some kind of open "@large projects consortium" known to everyone, so we may start building and allying on real projects instead of disputing/depending on ICANN's ones.

jfc

At 23:27 12/02/03, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
Joop,
I think the point ought to be made that Danny's initiative (as I understand
it) is not necessarily to be associated with icannatlarge.  Although many of
the members of icannatlarge may want to participate, I'm not sure the focus is
on icannatlarge.  Danny, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 08:31 a.m. 13/02/2003, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Sotiris and all,
> >
> >I agree that a web-based forum would be appropriate and I appreciate your
> >offer to set up such a forum.
>
> Danny and Sotiris,
>
> The icannatlarge Forum has an area reserved for drafting and adhesions to
> Petitions.
> No need to duplicate the effort.
>
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=17
>
> -joop-


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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 10/02/03

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 10/02/03


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