Re: [ALSC-Forum] ALSC Final Report - A Report in disenfranchisement?

[Jeff Williams]

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Thank you Jeff, as always your posts cut to the quick and demand real work get
> done.  To bad you won't be in MDR to get any done. But I look forward to your
> contributions on line.

 The real work is done here an in the host countries or areas of the stakeholders.
MdR is a simple dog and pony show, nothing more.

>
>
> 1.  Please give us the accounting for the alsc.
>
> 2.  Are there any stockholders in ICANN?

  Yes there will be.  But it seems from the Final report, the ALSC is
recommending only a tiny portion of the stakeholders may be At-Large
members.  That's not legitimate.

>
>
> 3.  Who are they?

  You know whom they are.  They are all of us.  They are users, domain name
holders, industry moguls, CEO's, shoe shine boys, and ect, ect...

>
>
> Simple questions and I demand answers.

  From whom?  If you don't know the answers a re-education program
should be your next step.

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Bruce and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> >   As I have posted to this thread on this forum earlier, from my first
> > reading, and now second more concentrated reading, this report
> > is little different from the ALSC Final "Draft" report and seems to
> > be and exercise in purposefully disenfranchise the vast majority of
> > stakeholders and thereby negate the White Paper and MoU.  I
> > believe thus far that this report reinforces some terrorists organizations
> > skewed belief that as democratic free world counties and people
> > we are singing one song and playing another tune...
> >
> > Bruce Young wrote:
> >
> > > Once again, the ALSC has used a series of meeetings which were never
> > > announced outside the Internet community as evidence of outreach.  And
> > > despite the obvious fact that an unannounced meeting isn't likely to garner
> > > few attendees, said lack of attendance is being used as evidence of a "lack
> > > of public consensus" upon which they can justify the disenfranchisement of
> > > Internet users in favor of domain name holders.  A decision, I should add,
> > > that a majority of those writing in this forum have objected to.  At what
> > > point are the views stated in this forum going to be acknowledged in your
> > > reports, let alone listened to?!
> > >
> > > To any lawyers out there: what is the possibility of a class-action lawsuit
> > > on behalf of all Internet users to force the board to establish the
> > > structure noted in the White Paper and mandate a true outreach?  Sounds
> > > drastic, I know, but what is our recourse?  Standing by while I am
> > > disenfranchised is unacceptable!
> > >
> > > Bruce Young
> > > Portland, Oregon
> > > byoung651@home.com
> > > http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html
> >
> > 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

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