Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
Out of curiosity, who turned down the ALSC's request
for the list of at-large members? Was it the Board, or
was it staff?
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Barbara -
> If I had clout with ICANN, things would be turning out differently. I (and
> the committee) did indeed ask for the list, to no avail.
> Nonetheless, with luck they can still be pushed in the right direction
> while many things are up in the air. Right now nothing is fixed, and I
> believe the best way to take advantage of that is to push constructively.
> At 09:05 PM 3/17/2002, Barbara Simons wrote:
> >Thanks! Your suggestion is the obvious approach, except
> >that the number of "instant" at-large members would be a six
> >digit figure if you count everyone who registered and five digits
> >if you just count those who confirmed their registration.
> >And both numbers would be considerably larger had
> >ICANN had the capacity to process everyone who
> >wanted to register and had everyone realized that it
> >was a two step process, i.e. registering was not sufficient
> >in order to be able to vote.
> >Esther, you have a bit of clout with ICANN. This seems
> >like the obvious starting point, rather than trying to put
> >something together from scratch, which I feel is doomed
> >to failure.
> >Kristy McKee wrote:
> > > I don't understand why anyone who is already a member of the At Large & has
> > > already voted and has had representation in ICANN should be required to
> > > sign up a second time.
> > >
> > > ICANN's At Large, as I understood, has several thousand members, not
> > > several hundred.
> > >
> > > Can anyone explain this to me, if yes, please do.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > ~k
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html