[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] On the ALAC's Request for Comments
Bruce and all fellow members,
bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> I'll sign! Where do we go? Comments noted below.
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> | Having witnessed the complete and total elimination of all public
> | representation on the ICANN Board these fools on the At-Large
> | Advisory
> | Committee now expect the Internet community to rally around a
> | top-down effort
> | designed to asininely further complicate communication
> | between individual
> | users and members of the ICANN Board.
>
> Of course! They don't want any outside voices to interfere with their
> internal mandate to provide maximum value for their Internet industry
> friends at everyone else's expense! After all, they'll all need highly-paid
> positions with one of their buddies' companies once they move on!
It seems that it is true or at least likely that the ALAC and ICANN have
behind the scenes or our of public view pieced together a "Deal" of
some sort. It is obvious and has been sense last February that the
ALAC/Than ALOC was in that process and are not interested in
individual stakeholder/user participation of any kind.
However the rest of this comment for yours Bruce, seems to be more
along the lines of jealous envy in regards to the futures of those selectively
involved in the ALAC and their other endeavors. That sort of dialog
and comment is less than professional and shall be detrimental to
the ICANNATLARGE.ORG members now and in the future.
We should work both inside where possible, and outside as to the
issues that ICANNATLARGE.ORG members are interested in
and/or believe effect them.
>
>
> | In the past, any individual user could write a letter to
> | ICANN and feel
> | confident that they would be ignored (as it has become rather
> | apparent that
> | ICANN only bothers to pay attention to those special-interest
> | groups it deems
> | to be "stakeholders" in its Cartel). Now one has to do all
> | of the following
> | in order to achieve the same outcome:
> | .
> | .
>
> ( Steps 1 through 9 left out solely for brevity. However, they are so right
> on! )
>
> | .
> | .
> | 10. Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can
> | then send his
> | comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional
> | organization has
> | elected. Those two members will then transmit his message to
> | the full
> | committee that will next proceed to filter, mangle, distort,
> | and re-write his
> | comments (after sincerely thanking him for his input). The
> | ALAC will then
> | transmit a non-binding "recommendation" to the Board that in
> | turn will thank
> | the committee for its efforts before proceeding to ignore the
> | comments
> | received.
>
> Indeed. Ignored either way. Thus the futility of any AL*C ICANN may set
> up.
This has been the practice of the ICANN BOD and staff in these sorts of
instances as the documented history clearly shows. Hence we must find
and implement approaches and ways in which we cannot be ignored.
This requires allot of MONEY which it seems this fledgling organization
has for the most part refused to belly up to the bar to....
>
>
> | As a user, I don't need this degree of structural bullshit just to
> | communicate my sentiments directly to ICANN. The problem is
> | not the lack of
> | a structured vehicle to serve as a communications conduit...
> | the problem has
> | always been that the Board has been comprised of members that
> | can't be
> | bothered to listen to the voice of the public that they
> | purportedly serve.
>
> That's because they only actually listen to the voices of those they
> *really* serve: their friends in the Internet industry!
The INternet Industry is in part about friends and relationships of
various types and scope. Yet your again restated point here is
well taken, although poorly worded.
>
>
> | This ALAC plan sucks. Unfortunately, the spineless worms on
> | the Committee
> | will never advocate for substantive change. Instead, they
> | will meekly accept
> | the bylaws as written and will continue to pretend to "represent" the
> | At-Large. All hail the Company Union.
>
> Indeed. Following your analogy, we're still being forced to buy our domain
> names from the Company Store (i.e. the current high-cost, poor-service
> registrars!), and are forced to make do with the few products ( i.e. TLDs)
> they have on the shelf! ;)
Here your wrong Bruce. You are not forced to buy your domain registration
from the ICANN "Company Store" as you ineffectively put it here. Many
other registries and registrars are available such as New.net by which you
can purchase your domain manes.
>
>
> ICANNATLARGE.ORG can still become a "real union" to represent Internet users
> and small domain-name owners like myself. Even though our organization has
> been sidetracked by company sympathizers (and apparently an undercover
> company stooge or three -- most of who have left to play ICANN's AL*C
> games!), I get the sense that those who remain have little further love for
> the "let's do it the company's way" crowd! That's why it's important that
> we get to organizing, and "striking" at all ICANN events (i.e. holding our
> own separate-yet-related meetings), and challenging the wisdom of the
> "bosses" by getting "ink" in the press to publicise our cause.
Again your idea here is a good one and has been stated by yourself
a number of times. But what are you or any other member really
willing to do about making such a reality? Where's the beef Bruce?
Are you willing to aid in gathering funding? That is what will and has
been needed to effect what you repeatedly espouse...
Talks cheep! Where's the doe?
>
>
> (I *love* this union analogy! The same logic applies in so many ways!)
>
> 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!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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