Re: [ALSC-Forum] Monday outreach meeting

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Esther Dyson wrote:

> thanks! that's better!  :)
>
> to answer your substantive question below:
>
> There is indeed a fourth option, Option D.  And you can add more: You can
> easily take the option template (chart) and fill it with  your own answers
> to it to create a new option.  And if you're nice, maybe Danny Younger will
> then represent it for you in one of his diagrams...
>
> As to why I ask this question now, why not?  We started the Forum to ask
> questions and get input. I am curious whom you and others think you
> represent (though it is something we have wondered about in general before,
> I was asking it now, of you). I don't think there's anything reprehensible
> in that. And to reply to Karl, it's a valid question to ask of anyone in a
> forum soliciting public opinion (and in the DNSO and anywhere else) - not
> as a challenge, but as a question. How many people do you think agree with
> you? just curious.... and it helps to frame the discussion.

  Well I and our members agree with Karl.  So that's around 100k Esther.
Would you like me to conduct a poll from our members on Karls
ideas?  I would be happy to do so!  >:)

>
>
> And finally, re consensus: Like it or not, consensus is in ICANN's
> charter... I at least am trying to improve the ICANN that exists, and I
> know that the committee's recommendations won't fly if they don't attract
> some kind of consensus.

  Yes but consensus must be measured or accounted.  Not just "Declared".

> Plus, given that we *cannot* poll everyone in the
> world, I think it's a good way to start.

  We can poll every existing participant however.

>  The degree of support for an idea
> is not the only measure of merit, but it is a reasonable factor to consider.

  No the degree of support for any idea is not the ONLY measure of merit,
but it is the only one that matters to any great degree, if ICANN is to be
a inclusive, and stakeholder driven organization as the contractual requirements
such as the White Paper and the MoU clearly outline...

>
>
> Esther
>
> At 02:11 PM 8/9/2001, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>
> >Dear all and Esther in particular,
> >My apologies if it looks like I am not interested in an answer and just
> >trying to score easy points. I never mind scoring easy points, mind you,
> >but I really want to move this forward. I am sorry if anyone took offence.
> >I will proceed in a more educated manner. Just ignore the rethoric and try
> >to address the questions posted below.
> >
> >Best regards and hugs to the concerned
> >
> >Mikael Pawlo
> >
> >At 08.00 +0200 01-08-09, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> > >At 19.01 -0400 01-08-07, Esther Dyson wrote:
> > >>re the end: No, it's a very broad question. For whom do people on lists
> > >>speak? For whom do voters speak? How can one tell?  I think it's a pretty
> > >>fundamental question (set of questions).   HOw should we interpret a bunch
> > >>of postings on a list when we are looking for the existence of consensus?
> > >
> > >Why should the study committee look for consensus? The consensus issue
> > >freeze framed the IFWP process and an independent study like this one is
> > >probably more interesting without a consensus.
> > >
> > >Further, why are you posing the question *now*? Iam stunned that you choose
> > >to pose the question at such a late stage. Do you not know why you started
> > >this forum in the first place?
> > >
> > >If I were on the study committee I would study a posting on its merits. To
> > >the study committee it really should not matter if a constituency or a
> > >private individual submit a view.
> > >
> > >>Re your frustration:  It seems to me there is a lot to give input into,
> > >>starting with four options we are toying with, plus lots of questions.
> > >
> > >What four options?
> > >In the discussion paper of July 12, 2001 there are no option, just a lot of
> > >questions. At the At Large Study Committee web site there is an "option
> > >template" with options A, B and C, namely three options. Is there another
> > >document with more options? Further - it is stated that I can submit my wn
> > >option - but I can not find any means to do it in practice.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Mikael Pawlo
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >  ICQ:35638414                              mailto:mikael@pawlo.com
> > >  +46-704-215825                              http://www.pawlo.com/
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >   ICQ:35638414                              mailto:mikael@pawlo.com
> >   +46-704-215825                              http://www.pawlo.com/
>
> 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