ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

  • To: ga@dnso.org
  • Subject: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com
  • From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
  • Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:02:40 +0200
  • In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020502174202.033a0650@pop3.norton.antivirus>
  • References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020502174202.033a0650@pop3.norton.antivirus>
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

Danny,

I have been reported your following quote taken from this list:

>>You wonder why I haven't mentioned icannatlarge.com in my last note.
>>Frankly, I didn't see the necessity.  Groups like CECUA and PFIR, among
>>others, have made public statements on ICANN Reform.  icannatlarge.com
>>hasn't.  Their membership hasn't even had the initiative to forward a
>>structural plan that included the At-Large component for consideration.

I repeat what I already told you days ago about this point. I would
find it quite weird if an organization which still has no Bylaws, no
formal processes, and up to yesterday, not even a Board and a Chair,
had been able to submit anything official before last Monday. The
maximum we could do was to submit comments as individuals or on behalf
of other efforts we were already working for - and even if you might
imagine how busy we were in the last weeks, some of us actually did.

You can read the contribution from Izumi Aizu (icannatlarge.com panel
member, and just chosen as Alt Chair) here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/pdf00006.pdf

You can read CPTech's contribution, submitted by James Love (panel
member), here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00072.html

and another personal contribution from him here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00043.html

Finally, you can read my own contribution here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/pdf00012.pdf

On last Monday evening I worked until 2am to finish that document, so
please excuse if it does not address all open issues, or it is not
particularly clear or bright, or it looks more like a brainstorming
than like a rational analysis and proposal, but I guess it says
something about why we should have an At Large inside ICANN.

Now, if this for you means that icannatlarge.com is not doing anything
to participate in the ICANN Reform process, I really don't understand
what you want us to do. But anyway, if you want to have
icannatlarge.com behave in a different way, simply join us and
participate.
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>