Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN Reform: New Proposal for At-Large elections

[Jeff Williams]

Eric and all satkeholders or interested parties,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> It is sad that we now have reasonable mechanisms in place but those who can
> call for votes and or polls do not seem to want them.

  Yes this is very sad.  It is also extremely divisive, and obviously
so..

> Over time the
> reasonaing becomes apparent.  The will of the voters simply means it is not
> at the will of the chairs or whomever.

  Good point and may indeed be true in many instances.

>
>
> If any of the at-large groups follow down this path we will lose all
> outreach as we have seen in the ga.  You only want to be a part of
> something to which you can be a real part, whether you routinely chose to
> exercise your options or not.

  Agreed, and also a good point that has been made on many occasions..

>
>
> If I were to have the say; everyone would just get used to voting on
> something on the 1st and the 15th of every month.  Sometimes just a vote of
> confidence sometimes a vote on evaluations of performance and always on
> anything in fron of the BoD and NC.

  Also this is a very good point and has been a central process requirement
of INEGroup as well as one that we have presented to the ICANN BoD
on a number of occasions in the past.  Direct representation and determination
of any and all policy considerations is essential if ICANN is to survive
in any meaningful way long term.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> >
> > Bill and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> >   Great overview in your comments here Bill.
> > (More specific comments in response below Bill's)
> >
> > William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What V. Bertola had argued for in an earlier email is as follows:
> >>
> >>  a more open At Large membership still has to exist.
> >>
> >> What you propose, Danny, is a restricted membership that (to the
> >> satisfaction of someone) has
> >> been active in ICANN affairs.  I thought that the "outreach" effort
> >> was
> >> to draw in new members
> >> who have not previously been active, so I don't think that telling
> >> them
> >> "by the way, you have not
> >> been active, so you haven't earned the right to a vote yet."  These
> >> (presumed) potential participants
> >> might well not have participated because they were appalled at the
> >> vitriolic anarchy that has for
> >> so long characterized GA affairs.
> >
> >   I as others would no characterize the GA affairs as anarchy in any
> >stretch of the imagination.  However that said, I can see how
> >some that are "Control Freaks" would prefer a more controlled
> > or contrived process within the DNSO GA.  As an assembly,
> > the GA because of some of it's illegitimate rules has been
> > at times plagued with the deployment of exclusive practices
> > which has lead to temporarily severe problems.  The GA
> > has a fairly good voting mechanism that has been used
> > effectively, but has been rejected at times by the NC and
> > the ICANN BoD on questionable grounds on many occasions.
> >
> >   The other problem that seems central to the GA on occasions
> > is the fact that understanding how "Assembly's" normally work
> > is lacking with every Chair the DNSO GA has had...
> > This processes back into process problems...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> icannatlarge.com has very rapidly collected 751 members, which is
> >> quite
> >> a bit more than the
> >> number of registered voters that ga@dnso.org ever had, and the bulk of
> >>
> >> the names I see are
> >> quite new to me.  There is an interested potential electorate out
> >> there,
> >> and they come in when
> >> they see that they will be treated fairly, as equals from the day they
> >>
> >> make themselves known.
> >
> >   This is a good point.  And in part shows that "Outreach" from
> > ICANN has been largely unsuccessful as it was not taken seriously
> > from the beginning from the DNSO and ICANN leadership.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What we have here is what we've been seeing for years: an issue comes
> >> up, and everyone
> >> wants to invent a new way to handle it, and various ad hoc election
> >> mechanisms and other
> >> procedural niceties are re-visited for the umpteenth time, and the
> >> whole
> >> thing will bog down
> >> in that, rather than whatever that might have been the issue.
> >
> >   Yes not using the method of voting on issues by GA members
> > has been thwarted time and time again by two of the Chairs,
> > including the current one.  Many excuses have been trotted out
> > as to why, including some yet to be defined "Cost or a Ballot"
> > as being one.
> >
> >> That is
> >> why, in icannatalarge.com,
> >> a trial run of the Best Practices procedure will soon be starting up,
> >> whereby the procedures
> >> will become fixed, and the route for any issue to any resolution or
> >> conclusion will be all laid
> >> out, and only policy decisions will need to be made to reach that end.
> >
> >   Good idea here too.  Lets just hope that such a procedure will not
> > be too restrictive as to restrict good ideas and efforts to come to a
> > vote.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> As to your
> >>
> >> "otherwise we will no longer have elected At-Large directors
> >> in ICANN,"
> >>
> >> fact is there may well no longer be anybody in ICANN -- ICANN will
> >> have
> >> disappeared.
> >
> >   You mean I hope here, other then the ICANN staff, BoD, and
> > constituency chairs... ????
> >
> >>
> >> My point, then, is that it doesn't matter what you do here -- I only
> >> raise my voice because
> >> of what I see as a notion of exclusivity at work here, and I don't
> >> like
> >> to see that anywhere.
> >
> >   Yes.  It has been relatively clear that exclusivity in the extreme is
> > what the ICANN BoD has wanted from the beginning.  Hence why
> > there are still "Boardsquatters"...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> (I assume that your "a commitment to ICANN" below means a commitment
> >> to
> >> its promotion,
> >> rather than to its destruction. So, you see, as active as I have been,
> >>
> >> even I would not qualify.)
> >>
> >> Bill Lovell
> >>
> >> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >V.Bertola writes:
> >> >
> >> ><< but in this way you are accepting that only those who can afford
> >> to catch
> >> >a plane to stay a week in Accra (which means that they have serious
> >> business
> >> >interests in ICANN's mission, or are paid to do so) would be allowed
> >> to
> >> >participate. >>
> >> >
> >> >Vittorio,
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps we are miscommunicating... my proposal makes it possible for
> >> everyone
> >> >that has "demonstrated" a commitment to ICANN to be able to
> >> participate in
> >> >the elections for At-Large Directors.  If you have written a letter
> >> to any
> >> >ICANN public forum (such as the ALSC list, the Reform list, or the
> >> Off-Topic
> >> >list), then you would be eligible to vote (as the organization has
> >> your name
> >> >and email address on file for contact purposes).  If you participated
> >> in any
> >> >Task Force (for example UDRP or dot ORG), or any Working Group (for
> >> example
> >> >"D" or Review), you could vote.  Physical attendance at ICANN events
> >> is not a
> >> >prerequisite (just another manner by which informed interest can be
> >> >demonstrated and addresses recorded).
> >> >
> >> >Our goal should be to devise a manner for elections that is
> >> acceptable to the
> >> >current Board... otherwise we will no longer have elected At-Large
> >> directors
> >> >in ICANN.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 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
>
> http://www.Hi-Tek.com
> Reality in a Digital World
>
> The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
> taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
> you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
> this material from any system.  Thank you!

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