Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> I have two corrections, and one question:
Thanks for your response and interest to my post.
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Alan Levin writes:
> > Goal: To begin the process of defining an enduring organization for the
> > At Large membership. Currently the At Large Membership consists of some
> > 158,000 anonymous individuals and 5 elected Board members.
> 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. 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 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. 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.
The second part of your comment is incorrect. At Large has 5 elected
ICANN Board members of which 1 is from each representative continent.
There are a further 4 board positions reserved for At Large but we don't
yet know exactly how they will be filled.
> > 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. 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. 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
In following the European list there are many people discussing this ad
nauseum .. see http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/index.html
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. 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.
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.
I do know that I don't know the answers to all this stuff but hopefully
this does help stimulate objective discussion.