Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1610
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, February 25 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1610

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:41:25 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Richard, and all,

This is Melvin Milktoast.
Someone needs to get down and dirty with these folks.
e

Richard Henderson wrote:

> OK, Esther, but mind you...
>
> ICANN's track record is to *say* and *encourage* all kinds of things, but at
> any stage, the Board just moves the goalposts!
>
> We polled our own "bottom up" At Large group (as you know)... 69% said they
> didn't trust ICANN's At Large proposals, as opposed to 19% who said they
> did; and you yourself (as you no doubt know with wry amusement) came 293rd
> out of 295, in a poll of who people trusted to promote the At Large, which
> was only a little worse than Denise who came 290th!
>
> And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, the members voted in favour of creating
> the At Large regional organisations independently and outside of ICANN. Only
> 1 in 5 wanted the ICANN RALOs.
>
> The implications here are pretty clear.
>
> Our majority view (a) publicly refutes the RALOs
> (b) is likely to refuse to participate in them
>
> Why? Because they suspect the Esther 'n' Denise initiative of being a
> facade, which will only legitimise the Board's coup and its expulsion of the
> At Large's elected representatives.
>
> People aren't *that* stupid, Esther!
>
> Regards
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
> To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>; Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
>
> > Richard -
> >
> > Your own words create a challenge:  Build a bottom-up, democratic,
> > *effective* organization, and I am sure it will be recognized by ICANN and
> > welcomed into a RALO where, yes, we (the ALAC) want the RALOs to define
> > their own rules.  (I wanted to say "I assure you" but I cannot, because I
> > don't speak for ICANN and neither does Denise. Nor do we presume to speak
> > for millions of users.)  The RALO structures and their rules are not yet
> > formed, and the ALAC is collecting feedback.
> >
> > The world (a small part of it, anyway!) is waiting.
> >
> > Esther
> >
> >
> > At 08:49 AM 2/24/2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >You're exactly right, Joanna.
> > >
> > >ICANN could have written in one-person-one-vote to their RALOs as a
> > >fundamental democratic condition, but they have chosen not to.
> > >
> > >Tell me (I address Denise) : if the first act of the RALOs is to demand
> (a)
> > >one-person-one-vote (b) the right of the RALOs to choose their own
> leaders
> > >and spokesperson and policies and ways of working... will ICANN accede?
> > >
> > >Who is actually running the RALOs: individual internet users or the ICANN
> > >establishment?
> > >
> > >If ICANN genuinely wants internet users represented, then clearly each
> > >internet user should be equally represented, through their own vote and
> > >their own right to participate. If ICANN genuinely wants a "bottom up"
> > >process, why do they construct a process which is dependent on
> nominations,
> > >unelected delegates, and rules which they (ICANN) impose?
> > >
> > >This is not to me the "At Large".
> > >
> > >This is to me, ICANN creating another process which it can control.
> > >
> > >Surely, elected representatives of the At Large on the Board with voting
> > >rights was a far more effective way of giving Internet Users power to
> > >influence the way the DNS is administered. One person one vote is far
> more
> > >credible.
> > >
> > >Why wasn't this fundamental democratic principle written into the ICANN
> > >structure?
> > >
> > >Why does the constituency representing hundreds of millions of users get
> > >about the same weighting (but very much less influence) as about 150
> > >registrars who are basically exploiting a supply conduit for their own
> > >profit (which I don't blame them for - everyone tries to make a living -
> but
> > >why do they get so much disproportionate influence over a commodity which
> > >belongs to hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
> > >
> > >The bottom line is that, ultimately, democracy and one member one vote,
> > >implemented right up to Board level, would sweep away the power clique
> that
> > >seeks to exploit its position for narrow vested interest.
> > >
> > >That is why the ICANN establishment had to EXPEL the elected Board
> members
> > >who represented the huge majority. That's why the ALAC was initiated, to
> > >minimise and contain the influence of the vast user constituency.
> > >
> > >What doesn't the ICANN Board understand about the word:
> > >
> > >DEMOCRACY ?
> > >
> > >yrs,
> > >
> > >Richard Henderson
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> > >To: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
> > >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > >Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> > >Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
> > >
> > >
> > > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> > > > > >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> > > > > >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> > > > > >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> > > > > >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article
> VI)."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> > > > > regions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> > > > > "citizens *and* residents").
> > > > > --
> > > > > vb.
> > > >
> > > > Vittorio,
> > > > It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add
> to my
> > > > other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to
> have
> > > > as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one
> > >person
> > > > one vote, or is that just too much to ask?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > [email-masked]
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > The conversation continues..... at
> > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> >
> > PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> > Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:42:56 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Joe, stop with the niceties,

Criminal fraud should be met with more force.
e

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Richard -
> >
> > Your own words create a challenge:  Build a bottom-up, democratic,
> > *effective* organization, and I am sure it will be recognized by ICANN and
> > welcomed into a RALO where, yes, we (the ALAC) want the RALOs to define
> > their own rules.  (I wanted to say "I assure you" but I cannot, because I
> > don't speak for ICANN and neither does Denise. Nor do we presume to speak
> > for millions of users.)  The RALO structures and their rules are not yet
> > formed, and the ALAC is collecting feedback.
> >
> > The world (a small part of it, anyway!) is waiting.
>
> Ester - stop bullshitting the masses please.  No RALO or ALAC is going to
> be recognized by ICANN.  Stop fishing the troops - ICANN has no interest
> in the publics opinion or participation past the generations of fuddle
> duddle discussions so they can claim they have consensus.  Lets not forget
> your own words ...
>
> "My job was only to express the board's opinion as a whole. Unfortunately
> it had very few opinions, because it didn't know very much, and its
> opinions were supposed to reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus."
>                       - Esther Dyson
>
> So lets stop with the bullshit Ester.  You distroyed your reputation
> because your played the bullshit artist and lost.  Learn from that or else
> we might find you ignorant.
>
> regards and a big squeeze to you know where
> joe
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>      BBC News Front Page - World Edition http://bbc.news/register_audience
>
> >
> > Esther
> >
> >
> > At 08:49 AM 2/24/2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >You're exactly right, Joanna.
> > >
> > >ICANN could have written in one-person-one-vote to their RALOs as a
> > >fundamental democratic condition, but they have chosen not to.
> > >
> > >Tell me (I address Denise) : if the first act of the RALOs is to demand (a)
> > >one-person-one-vote (b) the right of the RALOs to choose their own leaders
> > >and spokesperson and policies and ways of working... will ICANN accede?
> > >
> > >Who is actually running the RALOs: individual internet users or the ICANN
> > >establishment?
> > >
> > >If ICANN genuinely wants internet users represented, then clearly each
> > >internet user should be equally represented, through their own vote and
> > >their own right to participate. If ICANN genuinely wants a "bottom up"
> > >process, why do they construct a process which is dependent on nominations,
> > >unelected delegates, and rules which they (ICANN) impose?
> > >
> > >This is not to me the "At Large".
> > >
> > >This is to me, ICANN creating another process which it can control.
> > >
> > >Surely, elected representatives of the At Large on the Board with voting
> > >rights was a far more effective way of giving Internet Users power to
> > >influence the way the DNS is administered. One person one vote is far more
> > >credible.
> > >
> > >Why wasn't this fundamental democratic principle written into the ICANN
> > >structure?
> > >
> > >Why does the constituency representing hundreds of millions of users get
> > >about the same weighting (but very much less influence) as about 150
> > >registrars who are basically exploiting a supply conduit for their own
> > >profit (which I don't blame them for - everyone tries to make a living - but
> > >why do they get so much disproportionate influence over a commodity which
> > >belongs to hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
> > >
> > >The bottom line is that, ultimately, democracy and one member one vote,
> > >implemented right up to Board level, would sweep away the power clique that
> > >seeks to exploit its position for narrow vested interest.
> > >
> > >That is why the ICANN establishment had to EXPEL the elected Board members
> > >who represented the huge majority. That's why the ALAC was initiated, to
> > >minimise and contain the influence of the vast user constituency.
> > >
> > >What doesn't the ICANN Board understand about the word:
> > >
> > >DEMOCRACY ?
> > >
> > >yrs,
> > >
> > >Richard Henderson
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> > >To: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
> > >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > >Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> > >Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
> > >
> > >
> > > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> > > > > >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> > > > > >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> > > > > >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> > > > > >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> > > > > regions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> > > > > "citizens *and* residents").
> > > > > --
> > > > > vb.
> > > >
> > > > Vittorio,
> > > > It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add to my
> > > > other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to have
> > > > as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one
> > >person
> > > > one vote, or is that just too much to ask?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > [email-masked]
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > The conversation continues..... at
> > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> >
> > PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> > Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:46:43 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

Leah and all,

This is sweet and genuious, however it should be sharper and more critical.
e

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

> Todd,
> I would not personally wish to see your family put at risk because of your
> private information such as your home address or unlisted telephone number
> being published world wide, but perhaps if were to happen to you, you
> would
> understand the need for privacy.  This is especially true of women with
> children operating a SOHO.  It has less to do with spamming, although this
> has been a serious issue with data mining.  Until it hits you on a
> personal
> level, there is little understanding of the problem. It's much the same as
> those who have never had serious illness such as AIDS or cancer close to
> them.  You cannot really know the problem until it's in your backyard.
> When it does hit you, it's devastating.
>
> Having a public address does not mean that you must post that address for
> the world.  Even the telcos don't publish your address if you request it
> to
> be unpublished.  If you call the post office or telco, they will not
> release the information to the public, as it is private.  Having a phone
> number does not make it public.  Your drivers license and social security
> number is not published by those agencies for public view and people are
> told to guard their social security numbers.  I value my safety and
> privacy
> and have paid enough of a price in having my personal information
> published.
>
> When your life is threatened by some nut who relishes stalking and
> harrassment, get back to us and let us know if you still believe anyone
> should be able to get to your family just because you have a "public"
> domain on the internet.  The idea is to have the information you wish to
> be
> public on the internet and the rest is to be held privately.  For those
> who
> have a legitimate need to "find you" there are legal mechanisms in place.
> Having a small SOHO and advertising services should not EVER place anyone
> at risk.  It looks totally unprofessional to have such a business homed
> under a /~username address.  Having a third level domain under some ISP's
> domain is equally unprofessional.  Penalizing individuals is wrong, wrong,
> wrong, and was not the intention of the WHOIS.  The world has changed and
> the internet certainly has.  The WHOIS has been abused and used for things
> for which it was never intended.  Your position makes it even more prone
> to
> that abuse.
>
> The next time I have some nut call me or show up at my door at 3am because
> of the whois, I'll think of you.  It's not likely to happen at this point
> because I have a post office box now, but I do get some really distrubing
> mail every now and then and can tell it was due to the whois because of
> the
> information on the mail.  I report those disturbing mail pieces to the
> USPS
> inspector general, of course.  At least they take it seriously.
>
> Your position puts many people's lives at risk, Todd.  I realize you don't
> think it's an issue, but I can tell you it is.  Please don't take it
> lightly.
>
> Leah
>
> On 24 Feb 2003 at 7:20, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > Thomas - this biggest issue is why there is a need for privacy for a
> > public conveyance like an internet address. The whole point of getting a
> > public address is to be found, and like all mechanisms for being found in
> > the world today, there is no valid reason to need to register something
> > in the public view anonymously.
> >
> > The inherent misconception is that you need a public address to publish
> > on the Internet. What you need is a Search Engine that is willing to list
> > you as a IP address and then everything is moot with regard to the need
> > to have a domain.
> >
> > The issue is really that the people that this privacy protects are
> > spammers and not private citizens, they have been duped into believing
> > that their privacy is a reality on the Internet and it simply is not
> > true. The only issue in moving forward is how much money someone that
> > want to know about you or what you are up to is willing to spend to find
> > out.
> >
> > So the real issue in making WHOIS private is whether the Registrars are
> > willing to take financial culpability for any and all damages that any of
> > their "private clients" do and if they are - then fine. Otherwise the
> > problem is also moot since the first time it gets to court it will likely
> > ve struck down.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:15 PM
> > Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.
> >
> >
> > > The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> > > WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> > > report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> > > you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:19:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

Thomas and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  A "Brain Storming" session of meeting for Whois Privacy is not
needed.  What is well known and repeated frequently as the options
are very few and well known.  They must include the elimination of
a registrants Personal physical address, personal E-Mail address,
and personal Phone number in a Whois listing on their, or any
registrants Domain name.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:35:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Vittorio and all Former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  VIttorio,  you and most folks that have been actually paying close
attention to the history of ICANN is that MoU's can always be
ignored, changed without review or consent of the effected in
ways that demonstrably or significantly make said MoU's ineffectual
or not enforceable.  Hence your suggestions here, is yet again, a poor
one...

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:14:16 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >Thanks for these clarifications, Vittorio
> >
> >The concern is that in some RALOs, certain organisations may capture the
> >RALO and "lock out" the individual vote.
> >
> >ICANN could have insisted on one member - one vote as the basis of running
> >the RALOs, but I suspect ICANN feared that the RALOs would then be
> >"captured" by the real members - that is to say, the ordinary individual
> >internet users.
>
> This is still something that could be addressed in the MoU between ICANN and
> the RALO, to which the Bylaws devolve the practical requirements. As the
> ALAC will definitely have a say in this, we might decide to add a "1 head 1
> vote" requirement at least where the RALO founding group chooses such
> principle. (Ultimately it will be the ICANN Board that approves the MoUs,
> but I think that if the ALAC and the RALO agree on a text the Board might be
> keen on approving it as it is.)
>
> >This remains a "top down" ICANN Board initaitive, which attempts to capture
> >and contain the At Large movement.
>
> I still think that you should judge the mechanism only after it is fully
> formed - and that there's plenty of space for influencing it (e.g. see Danny
> Younger's initiative).
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:13:05 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Joe and all former DNSO GA members,

  Touché and well done here Joe!  >:)

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Richard -
> >
> > Your own words create a challenge:  Build a bottom-up, democratic,
> > *effective* organization, and I am sure it will be recognized by ICANN and
> > welcomed into a RALO where, yes, we (the ALAC) want the RALOs to define
> > their own rules.  (I wanted to say "I assure you" but I cannot, because I
> > don't speak for ICANN and neither does Denise. Nor do we presume to speak
> > for millions of users.)  The RALO structures and their rules are not yet
> > formed, and the ALAC is collecting feedback.
> >
> > The world (a small part of it, anyway!) is waiting.
>
> Ester - stop bullshitting the masses please.  No RALO or ALAC is going to
> be recognized by ICANN.  Stop fishing the troops - ICANN has no interest
> in the publics opinion or participation past the generations of fuddle
> duddle discussions so they can claim they have consensus.  Lets not forget
> your own words ...
>
> "My job was only to express the board's opinion as a whole. Unfortunately
> it had very few opinions, because it didn't know very much, and its
> opinions were supposed to reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus."
>                       - Esther Dyson
>
> So lets stop with the bullshit Ester.  You distroyed your reputation
> because your played the bullshit artist and lost.  Learn from that or else
> we might find you ignorant.
>
> regards and a big squeeze to you know where
> joe
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>      BBC News Front Page - World Edition http://bbc.news/register_audience
>
> >
> > Esther
> >
> >
> > At 08:49 AM 2/24/2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >You're exactly right, Joanna.
> > >
> > >ICANN could have written in one-person-one-vote to their RALOs as a
> > >fundamental democratic condition, but they have chosen not to.
> > >
> > >Tell me (I address Denise) : if the first act of the RALOs is to demand (a)
> > >one-person-one-vote (b) the right of the RALOs to choose their own leaders
> > >and spokesperson and policies and ways of working... will ICANN accede?
> > >
> > >Who is actually running the RALOs: individual internet users or the ICANN
> > >establishment?
> > >
> > >If ICANN genuinely wants internet users represented, then clearly each
> > >internet user should be equally represented, through their own vote and
> > >their own right to participate. If ICANN genuinely wants a "bottom up"
> > >process, why do they construct a process which is dependent on nominations,
> > >unelected delegates, and rules which they (ICANN) impose?
> > >
> > >This is not to me the "At Large".
> > >
> > >This is to me, ICANN creating another process which it can control.
> > >
> > >Surely, elected representatives of the At Large on the Board with voting
> > >rights was a far more effective way of giving Internet Users power to
> > >influence the way the DNS is administered. One person one vote is far more
> > >credible.
> > >
> > >Why wasn't this fundamental democratic principle written into the ICANN
> > >structure?
> > >
> > >Why does the constituency representing hundreds of millions of users get
> > >about the same weighting (but very much less influence) as about 150
> > >registrars who are basically exploiting a supply conduit for their own
> > >profit (which I don't blame them for - everyone tries to make a living - but
> > >why do they get so much disproportionate influence over a commodity which
> > >belongs to hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
> > >
> > >The bottom line is that, ultimately, democracy and one member one vote,
> > >implemented right up to Board level, would sweep away the power clique that
> > >seeks to exploit its position for narrow vested interest.
> > >
> > >That is why the ICANN establishment had to EXPEL the elected Board members
> > >who represented the huge majority. That's why the ALAC was initiated, to
> > >minimise and contain the influence of the vast user constituency.
> > >
> > >What doesn't the ICANN Board understand about the word:
> > >
> > >DEMOCRACY ?
> > >
> > >yrs,
> > >
> > >Richard Henderson
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> > >To: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
> > >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > >Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> > >Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
> > >
> > >
> > > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> > > > > >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> > > > > >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> > > > > >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> > > > > >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> > > > > regions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> > > > > "citizens *and* residents").
> > > > > --
> > > > > vb.
> > > >
> > > > Vittorio,
> > > > It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add to my
> > > > other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to have
> > > > as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one
> > >person
> > > > one vote, or is that just too much to ask?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > [email-masked]
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > The conversation continues..... at
> > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> >
> > PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> > Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:44:22 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:14:01 -0000, you wrote:

>ICANN suffers from a lack of credibility, which its treatment of the At
>Large does nothing to redress

True. But perhaps it has started to realize that it cannot govern the
Internet without credibility. There are many others which would like
to replace it (though not many of them are more open or better for the
users).
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:46:09 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:25:29 -0000, you wrote:

>And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, the members voted in favour of creating
>the At Large regional organisations independently and outside of ICANN. Only
>1 in 5 wanted the ICANN RALOs.

This is another common misunderstanding. RALOs *are* expected to
develop independently and outside of ICANN. In fact, the main risk
IMHO is that they are so independent that they cannot get funds from
ICANN or from other sources and so they fail to start.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:28:33 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:45:44 -0500, you wrote:

>First, let's not forget that ICANN has no future without an At Large to
>which significant numbers of existing At Large Activists can be delivered.
>Without that, it cannot support any claim to be fulfilling its core mission
>and ultimately will collapse.

...and likely be replaced by the ITU, an intergovernmental
organization that knowingly gives the public voting powers and broad
ways to participate. Would that be an achievement for us?

So I agree with most of your views, but not with the strategy you seem
to devise to get them realized.

And by the way:

>Instead of fostering real public participation by throwing the door open to
>all groups and individuals, which is the way the At large was originally
>intended to be, instead, the ALAC is proposing to draw key players from a
>community already dominated by hand picked representatives.

Please document this statement. What did the ALAC propose and where?

>Yet, if I understand this correctly, ICANN will not
>be overseeing the internal procedures of any of these external organizations
>directly. That means no oversight for ensuring proper democratic procedures
>take place within the RALOs, and no enforcement.

So, if ICANN manages the At Large directly, it is trying to take
control of it, and if it does not, it is not controlling it enough.
What are you proposing then?

>In the current vision, ICANN neatly removes itself from any direct
>responsibility for an At Large voting process of any kind.

Yes.

But this has the great advantage that ICANN (whose current Board is
openly against online elections) also removes itself from having any
word about how that voting process may happen. And it was the only way
we could let the current Board accept *any* At Large voting process or
direct representation.

But this also means that now you have to actually get your hands dirty
and do something more than writing articles, as many of us have been
doing on their time and at their expense for months now.

>While the At Large is still generally perceived as crucial, banishing it
>altogether is not an option for ICANN. Consequently, the At Large does not
>have to agree to such a one-sided agreement and even now, users have the
>choice to stand their ground and insist on ICANN support for a more
>meaningful At Large Structure.

Oh well, insist. Stand up, stop breathing and start crying until your
mom will come and protect you from the baddies. But I fear that the
last years prove that there's no "mom" that will come to save you.
Certainly not the US DoC. Certainly not the ITU or the UN. It's year
2003, the world is ruled by governments and corporations, and you have
to use your elbows, your smile, your creativity and your tenacity to
get some space for the common citizens.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1610
*************************