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

[Eric Dierker]

Jeff,

Why didn't you address 1. Accounting for ALSC?

Don't they pass resolutions in MDR?

Isn't getting to know each other on a personal level one of the ways we enhance better
communication?  Did Mr. Blair just meet with Mr. Bush when they could have got all
their work done on line? Here is one of the greatest errors of technical thinking, you
think logical technical communications can replace face to face meetings, you forget
that the net is only a tool to enhance our abilities not a replacement.

I think it was Roeland that told me managing his servers was the job but managing his
people was the work.

Many of the participants here just don't get it.  ICANN can not exist to serve the
Internet Community.  It must only exist to make the Internet Community serve the
people.  Whether we are a Professional Society or whether we are a democratic bottoms
up consensus oriented membership ruled governance structure it is not for our benefit
we operate but for the users benefit.

Now we must decide if the poor users of the world, which I call dotcommoners are in
tune enough to be given a larger voice in determining what is good for them.  I hope
that by sharing some of my experiences, with dotcommoners, with others at MDR that I
can nudge a few closer to seeing that dotcommoners would do a better job than the
technically sophisticated that seem a little out of touch with consensus and the
common user.

Just as I do not want soldiers making policy I do not like techies deciding what is
good for me.  I don't want my doctor deciding to operate, I want him to give me enough
information so that I can decide and then I want him to do a great job operating or
not.

If the internet is to be our tool instead of our master, then the people that run it
must be our servants and not our dictators.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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