RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Constituency

[bruce@barelyadequate.info]

Based on your responses, count me in!  I agree that we all can multitask!

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!




| -----Original Message-----
| From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
| Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 10:52 AM
| To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
| Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
| Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Constituency
| 
| 
| Joop,
| regarding the questions you have posed:
| 
| Q1.  Do you believe that DN Holders will have more influence on ICANN 
| policymaking via the new GNSO than via the indirect chance to get 
| Individual-Registrant friendly directors on the Board?
| A1.  I don't believe that any actions that we might take will 
| result in 
| getting Individual-Registrant friendly directors on the Board 
| -- the deck has 
| been stacked against us already in order to ensure a 
| self-perpetuating Board. 
|  I also believe that certain constituencies will do their 
| utmost to limit the 
| influence that might be enjoyed by this new constituency.
| 
| Q2.  Do you believe that there is a reasonable chance that 
| the current Board 
| will now approve a Petition that was ignored (I'm not saying 
| "rejected") 3 
| years ago, when they were less in siege-mode?  
| A2.  The chance is poor (as the Board will continue to 
| "confuse" the at-large 
| with such a constituency).  Further, as the majority of the 
| Board will be 
| drawn from the combination of GNSO candidates and from the Nominating 
| Committee which is dominated by GNSO representatives, our 
| chances of success 
| are diminished further (as few within the GNSO supported any prior 
| initiatives to launch such a constituency).  Whether or not 
| the chance is 
| reasonable, we have a right to initiate such a process.  I 
| look forward to 
| exercising that right.
| 
| Q3.  Do you believe that both efforts can proceed at the same 
| time, without 
| one being a distraction to the other?
| A3.  Yes, I and others are capable of multi-tasking.
| 
| Q4.  Would you go along with a constituency that is little 
| more than an 
| umbrella structure (just like I would want it for the At Large)?
| A4.  We have seen prior efforts that were too caught up in 
| process (with 
| members spending the bulk of their time in parliamentarian 
| discussion rather 
| than on policy discussion), and we have seen the fruits of too little 
| structure.  Personally, I would like to look at the Charters 
| of the current 
| constituencies, pick out one that seems to work well, and 
| then modify it 
| according to the needs of this new constituent group.  That 
| basically means 
| officers and GNSO council representatives just like every 
| other constituency 
| -- it does not imply a governing Board or Panel.  
| 
| Q5.  Would you go along with a constituency that accepts a 
| multi-party 
| democracy (ditto)?
| A5.  Joop, you have always been keen on building democratic 
| structures.  My 
| interests lie elsewhere.  The only thing that really matters 
| to me is that 
| when a topic is under discussion, all views (both majority 
| and minority) are 
| put forth in a document that makes its way up to the ICANN 
| Board.  If you 
| want parties, go ahead and have parties -- it makes little 
| difference to me.  
| I won't object.
| 
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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