Re: [atlarge-discuss] A Different Approach

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

Joop and all,

  I have a complete copy of the archives Joop.  ALthough WXW played
a role in the disinagrationof the IDNO, it was you that dealt it the
death blow...  The archives clearly show that...

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 05:43 p.m. 15/02/2003, DPF wrote:
> >For many years a lot of people have worked hard to have a mechanism
> >where individual internet users can have input into ICANN.  But both
> >the IDNO and now icannatlarge.org have ended in failure.  IDNO spent
> >several years trying to get things to happen but died and this
> >organisation in a year has failed to even agree on the most basic
> >things and has now lost almost every panelist.
>
> The IDNO is not really dead and still has a structure and a website here:
> www.democracy.org.nz
> Only the last discuss list archives have been "disappeared"  by WXW to
> cover up his massive efforts to kill it.  Did the members vote for disbanding?
> Do you know that new members are still  signing up  for the Cyberspace
> Association?
> It is true that the potential leadership for IDNO  has been inactive.
> Somebody has to re-boot it again. It has the advantage of an existing set
> of Bylaws that stipulate a process of accountability and voting. These
> Bylaws can be refined and flaws and omissions can be fixed. It can be tuned
> for the new ICANN situation and the new GNSO. Better than starting with
> nothing.
>
> Neither has icannatlarge ended.
>
> What icannatlarge is about is not the same as demanding representation of
> Individual Domain Name Holders within the new GNSO.
>
> ICANN has rebuffed that petition before with the argument that the
> Individuals would get their representation through At Large directors and
> had an ALSC tell us that At Large membership would be restricted to Domain
> Name Holders.
>
> If 15 of our best (integrity, knowledgeability) people would choose to
> spend their energy on a GNSO focused petition, could that not in effect
> kill the icannatlarge user representation effort and leave that field to
> the ALOC? If icannatlarge becomes ALOC and "succeeds" with ICANN, would
> there be *any* chance for an independent "new-IDNO" to be let into the cosy
> GNSO???
>
> It is all very well to be complementary, and I agree with the goal, but can
> this group give up  that many active people in exchange for a very likely
> "NO, go away" at the end of the GNSO tunnel?
>
> David , one more thing, I agree (obviously, since I have tried to walk the
> same path before and leart my l;essons) with much that you say about
> working effectively, but why are you asking people to contact you privately?
>
> Why not a public show of hands, or a public listing on the web, so that
> everyone can determine for him/herself  with whom  (s)he wants to be
> associated.
>
> -joop-
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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