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

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all stakeholders,

Esther Dyson wrote:

> Yes, it does read like an excerpt from the worst at-large-related
> conspiracy theories... So why should you believe it just because Antony
> wrote it?  Why not at least wait to see what the study committee comes up with?

  Nice deflection Esther, but I doubt anyone is biting.  >;)  I think you know
very well why that waiting for this commettee (Suposedly independant?)
is really a bit of a ruse at best.  Although a very well disguised one perhaps.
This is the 5th time such a "Study" for @large members has been conducted
to no avail thus far.  The last @large election was nearly a farce, and
huge numbers of "ICANN Registered Voters" could not vote due to
election.com's election problems and ICANN not supplying the
necessary pin #'s for those registered voters.  Not to mention the ICANN
BoD's recent decision not to provide ANY funds for the next @large,
election, if there is to be one...  Than of course there is the ostrisizing of the
ONLY two ICANN @large directors Andy and Karl problem.

  Is this sufficient enough reason for you Esther?  If not I can also
briefly provide allot of links and other information if need be?

>
>
> It seems to me - individually - that this gives us more freedom rather than
> less in our recommendations...but it doesn't change the principles on which
> we will make them, which is hoe to find an effective way for individuals to
> participate in ICANN policy-making and influence ICANN board decisions.  If
> there *is* a conspiracy, they haven't let us in on it.

   The only effective way is one stakeholder, one vote Esther.  Pretty
simple really...  >;)

>
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> At 06:24 13.06.01, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >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/
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
> PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208