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

[Daryl Tempesta]

Hi All,

If it smells like garlic it is garlic.

1) Might I suggest  Antony comment directly or better
yet have ICANN perform what they have promiesd already
and elect the addional atLarge reps. 

2) On another topic - It seems dishonest for  ICANN to
ask for a body of people to work essentially for free
and chase the goals they have understood were the base
line for any solution, only to have them moved.
(whether it's a conspiracy or not)

It is probably hoped (by the board squatters) that
dilution of the atLarge will happen if the process can
be dragged out,  including atLarge seats dropped etc..

It is clear however there is a strong enough interest 
by those supporting the atLarge effort to organize
atLarge structures ( millions of people ) 

A split from ICANN will happen before silence.   

A child hood bully is remembered, especially when the
tormended act together; and they remember when they
become adults, when they can fight back; It is early
in the process. I would encourage all of the power
keyholders to be open and fair. 

The atLarge community is a waking giant.




--- Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 


=====
Daryl Tempesta
HotDot.com
288 Civic Center Dr
Scotts Valley, 95066
831-239-9656 (c)
831-439-9239 (h)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/