Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Bottom up process and group dynamics

[DannyYounger]

Bruce,

You have remarked that "If we can draw in sufficient numbers world-wide, 
ICANN will have no choice but to recognize us, or face public disdain."

Perhaps you haven't heard of another well-established world-wide organization 
whose members have a passionate interest in the Internet, who aren't 
represented as a constituent group within any of ICANN's current Supporting 
Organizations, who last year opened up new chapters in Ecuador, Bangladesh, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Georgia, and the Republic of Tatarstan, who have 1493 
members in 24 chapters in the developing world, another 42 chapters in 
developed countries and still another 87 chapters-in-formation with an 
overall contributing membership in excess of 7230 members.

That organization is ISOC (the Internet Society), that twice participated in 
early efforts to manage the resource that ICANN now controls.  You may 
recognize some of the names of those prominent in the organization:  ISOC 
Founding Chairman Vint Cerf, ISOC-Benin Chapter president Pierre Dandjinou, 
ISOC-France Chairman Olivier Iteanu, ISOC-Mexico Board member Oscar Robles, 
ISOC-Mexico Chairman Alejandro Pisanty, ISOC Standards Officer Helmut Schink, 
ISOC-Japan Vice Chairman Jan Murai, and ISOC Founding Trustee Lyman Chapin, 
among others.

Still, to this day ISOC is not "recognized" (as you have phrased it), and 
ICANN has suffered no public disdain by not "recognizing" that entity even 
though the full leadership of the ICANN Board stems from that organization.  
What makes you think that ICANN is going to feel any embarrassment or shame 
by not according your tiny nascent organization any recognition?  

The At-large is much bigger than any one group such as icannatlarge.com, and 
it requires a comprehensive plan to fully incorporate it (and its member 
organizations such as ISOC) within the ICANN structure.  

Bruce, you have argued that ICANN at the very least, should have respected 
your timeline and waited a few more months... what utter nonsense... they're 
supposed to stop what they're doing and wait for some other organization to 
get its act together?  That you choose not to abide by the same set of 
deadlines that everyone else must adhere to paints your organization as 
nothing more than an unbridaled arrogant rogue.

Frankly, why should anyone on the Board want to deal with this group when in 
the first instance it is incredibly small, financially non-self-sustaining, 
won't adhere to generally accepted timetables, and is composed mostly of 
members that are already represented in the Supporting Organizations? 

...Just because you've managed to collect some 800 names on a list -- none of 
whom have actually tendered any dues?  How impressive...  You might want to 
prove your commitment before you expect others to believe that such a 
commitment exists.