Re: [ALSC-Forum] Point of no return?

[Jeff Williams]

Cecily and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  I think ICANN can still be fixed.  But it will take some doing.
What is necessary beyond any shadow of a doubt given
the very recent events is an At-Large that elects 9 board members
or at least 51% of the Board.  Getting this done will get the board
squatters off of the BoD and make for a situation where policy
making for ICANN is open, transparent and serves the stakeholder
community in a meaningful and accurately representative way.

Cecily & Ralph Wood wrote:

> It is now time to determine whether ICANN is a failed experiment, or
> whether it can be made to function.  Right now its problems go WAY
> beyond whether it has a functioning At Large constituency, legally
> required or not.
>
> Has it any basis in reality?
>
> Its lack of forthcoming to even elected board members on its finances,
> including the information that it has not even filed those records
> required by law, and suspicions of irregularities - this, in itself, is
> perhaps enough to bring it down in flames, especially given the post
> Enron atmosphere.
>
> Has it actually performed what it was supposed to?  Only minimally, I
> think, and there are many indications that it is simply being ignored.
>
> Is it worth saving, or should we abandon it and let it crash and burn?
> It's time to make a decision.  Mr. Morfin has suggested some concrete
> steps to creating a new entity that would avoid the problems besetting
> the present ICANN.  It requires a lot of support from the other
> bottom-up constituencies, and might not be workable.  Still, we can
> learn from our old mistakes, which might lessen the number of new
> mistakes we make.
>
> We have several people willing to donate significant money and resources
> for the creation of an At Large.  I think we must do something, do it
> now, and my preference is to do it outside of ICANN, so we can either
> pressure and fix the present ICANN, or we can work toward a new and
> better method of managing the necessary internet functions.
>
> We've all maintained that to be efficient in gathering together a core
> of At Large members, we need access to the "member" lists and voting
> lists from the first At Large election, but we've never been able to pry
> them out of ICANN.  It is often pointed out information is far less
> secure and far more available than we expect.  Is there no other source
> of this information?  What about the foundation that underwrote the
> funding for the election and that monitored it?  If they were convinced
> we were legitimately creating our own At Large, would they be persuaded
> to share such information, assuming they might have it (in an off-site
> backup somewhere, or in some staffer's archives)?
>
> I cannot offer you money.  I can offer interest, common sense, and
> reasonable intelligence.  And, in July I will be retired, so I might be
> able to offer you time, although I hope to be starting my own business.
> Cecily

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208