RE: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun?

[Bruce Young]

Is this surprizing?  One can assume that, if the Board wishes to kill the
At-Large, things like this will continue to emerge.  It just validates our
view of their intent.  At some point, we need to find a way to get the
mainstream Internet comunity behind the At-Large effort.  Just us taking in
this fourum is not going to effect change, since the logic of our arguments
are falling on deaf ears (or maybe closed minds?).

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org
[mailto:owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:24 AM
To: ALSC forum
Subject: [ALSC-Forum] At Large Choreography - smoking gun?



Call me naive - I just wanted to believe that there is some kind of
honest effort behind this study committe.  And indeed, I still
sincerely believe that some people are indeed acting in good faith.


However, consider this message from Antony Van Couvering to
inta-list (ICANNwatch pointed to it first), which does actually read
like an excerpt from the worst at-large-related conspiracy theories:

>The ccTLD "breakaway" is a good deal less serious than the press
>coverage ("ccTLDs Revolt") would make out.  At every single
>meeting the ccTLDs make this threat, and nothing has ever come of
>it.  In Melbourne, however, the ICANN Board whispered in the ccTLD
>Administrative Committee's ear that this would be a Good Thing.
>And lo!, it has come to pass.  That said, the move does answer to
>the ccTLDs fury at being saddled with ICANN finances when they
>receive nothing in return.

>In a cross-constituency meeting, all the other constituencies
>applauded the move and wished the ccTLDs best of luck.

>This should be seen as part of the ICANN Board's continuing
>efforts to reconstitute the DNSO.  If as a Supporting
>Organization, the ccTLDs get three Board seats, what happens to
>those At-Large seats that were never elected?  Do they increase
>the size of the Board? Don't be surprised to see the number of
>At-Large seats diminished. The choreography here is more organized
>than at first it might appear.

<http://www.biglist.com/lists/lists.inta.org/tmtopics/archives/0106/msg00084
.html>

However, this message is not from some lunatic - but from a message
of the ccTLD constituency's administration committee
<http://www.wwtld.org/whoiswho/>.  I'd suppose it should be taken
seriously.


The obvious question this raises is, of course, this one: Why the
hell should we bother with the at large study, with the committee,
and with this forum, when it's just part of some "organized
choreography" (to use Antony's wording)?  Why should we spend time
and brain power when the result will either look the way certain
forces on the board want it to look like, or will quite probably be
ignored?


If the board really wants to create irate opposition against ICANN,
this is the way to do it.

Tell people that you are honestly studying some questions, appoint a
committee with big names on it - and work behind the scenes to make
that committee's result irrelevant.  (Getting caught with a smoking
gun is, certainly, not suitable to improve the situation.)


Of course, individuals' opposition may be quite irrelevant for the
overall picture - however, if that's what the board's majority
thinks and acts like, the board should be so honest to put the cards
onto the table instead of using the At Large elections and directors
as fig leaf style legitimization which can be used when the board's
majority may stand naked otherwise.

(Or should I just have said - "the board should stop lying"?  I
wouldn't have thought I'd write something like this even a few weeks
ago.)

--
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/