In message <[log in to unmask]>, Alan Levin writes:
> > Currently the At Large Membership consists of some 158,000 anonymous
> > individuals and 2 elected Board members.
> Yes, there are currently some 158,000 individuals currently
> registered as At Large members and some 76,000 activated their
> membership to vote in the open elections.
They registered as voters in a vodoo election not as members of a
constituency. And, those are only the ones that were successful in
registering. And with regards to activation, I have made a comment on
the Carter Center statement already, they are the ones that managed to
activae their membership.
> This is a non-exclusive group open to anyone interested to be
> informed about, and connected to the policy making structure for the
> Internet's domain name and numbering systems.
As far as I am concerned, this is the constituency for individual
> As such I would dare to include you as an involountary At-Large
> member, although I believe that similar to Nii you also fall into
> the ICANN - DNSO - cctld constituency.
I have been a member since inception.
Indeed, Nii and I fall under ccTLD constituency, he also owns an ISP,
sits on a few ICANN committees, hardly the optimal candiate for a
constituency of indivudial users.
> In my understanding, registration to At Large purely facilitates
> formal involvement but would not be a prerequisite for attending
> this coming meeting or any other involvement.
I agree with that.
> The second part of your comment is incorrect. At Large has 5 elected
> ICANN Board members of which 1 is from each representative
Puleeze, you are not talking to an uninitiated. It doesn't matter to
me how many people were "elected", as far as I am concerned only 2
(maybe 3) but most certainly not the African representative are
> There are a further 4 board positions reserved for At Large but we
> don't yet know exactly how they will be filled.
There you have it!
> > > At this meeting recognized leaders among the membership can work to
> > > create a more enduring member organization.
> > There is no organization, no leader and most certainly nobody to
> > recognize anyone.
> > What makes you think any of this matters?
> Nice observation. Personally it matters to me because I see a
> community making a combined effort.
It matters to me too, by the way. But none of this logorrhea has any
> I feel the whole momentum of the networked economy is derived from
> collaborative community effort - people working with passion about
> what they do rather than for immediate financial benefit. As such
> the leadership and recognition will come, just like they have in
> other Internet organisations.
Right, but we are talking about ICANN, not the Internet, if it was the
Internet, we had no problem.
> I would even speculate that the Internet has matured to a level
> which has restricted the ability for an emergent leader to have come
> about which could mean a more democratic result.
You are right in a way, the ICANN board was too clever for their own
good and got Müller-Maghun und Auerbach elected. That will bring some
transparency to the table :-)-O
> In following the European list there are many people discussing this
> ad nauseum .. see http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/index.html
As I said, logorrhea doesn't matter.
> Further, in my understanding ICANN does have (and will retain) control
> of the policy making structure for the Internet's domain name and
> numbering systems.
Yes, sure, the US government doesn't want to relinquish control, but
that doesn't make it right, now, dows it?
> This means that if (G_d forbid) anything disastrous had to happen to
> the Namibian Network Information Centre then it will be an ICANN
> related responsibility to sort out the Namibian domain. I personally
> would prefer ICANN does that than any government.
It is my position that IANA should do it under RFC 1591.
> I do feel that there is a potential for ICANN to become 'government
> like' in nature, but I have confidence that through good process and
> community involvement we can avoid that.
USG and big business will never allow this to happen.
> I do know that I don't know the answers to all this stuff but
> hopefully this does help stimulate objective discussion.