Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com
Danny, the icannatlarge.com panel hasn't even been in place 1 full week yet.
It's main job is to set the stage for a more permanent governing structure.
The panel's term ends in less than 90 days. It does not have a very broad
manadate to make policy. It's about a year or two late, but so what. You
think the last 5 days haven't produced enough results?
----- Original Message -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com
> You have been in the ICANN environment long enough to understand the
> consequences of recommendations that are formulated at too high a level of
> generality. As the saying goes... the devil is in the details. The
> in Resolution 02.22, has asked to be provided with "specifics" such as:
> 1. the ways the different components of any proposed structure will
> together and interact;
> 2. the system of checks and balances that will ensure both the
> and the openness of the organization.
> 3. the ways in and conditions under which essential components of any
> proposed structure that may not be able to be fully incorporated at the
> of the reform process will be included when appropriate; and
> 4. a description of a proposed transition process from the current
> to any recommended new structure, including a description of how the
> components of ICANN relate to the new proposed structure, and the
> timetable for that transition;
> Specifics have not been articulated in most of the comments submitted thus
> far. Instead, most comments tend to take the form of "I don't have a
> specific suggestion to offer, but I can tell you that I don't like this
> of Stuart's plan." The implication is that the Board Committeee should
> come up with something else.
> Do you trust the Board and Staff sufficiently to settle upon whatever they
> propose? Why then are you leaving it in their hands, rather than
> individually or collectively drafting a comprehensive counter-proposal
> at least offers the same degree of granularity that is to be found in
> Stuart's plan? You and your fellow activists have been waging the
> War for several years now. This is not the time to allow yourselves to be
> reduced to a "mechanism" by some Board Committee when representational
> are at stake, and when the future structure of ICANN and its Board
> composition are on the line...
> You state: I really don't understand what you want us to do. Let me be
> clear... I am expecting those that sincerely believe in the At-Large to
> up with a highly-detailed comprehensive proposal that addresses the
> "specifics" that the Board has requested, and to do it in a timely fashion
> that such input can be considered by the group that is now formulating
> specific recommendations to the Board, the Evolution and Reform Committee.
> You are in the final minutes of the game with the goal line in view. Now
> not the time to fumble the ball. Surely among your many associates, there
> a sufficiently large enough brain trust and commitment to get the job
> If you fail to put such a comprehensive plan on the table, then you will
> to live with the fact that the "specifics" advanced by others (such as
> Staff) prevailed in the absence of your detailed input. The choice is
> to make.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html