Print

Print


Alan,

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.

ROTFLPIMPGAH!

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
users.


> 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
> continent.

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
At-Large.

> 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
impact.

> 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.

:-)-O

el