Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
Vint and all assembly members,
As this is my 5th post today to this forum I will try to be brief
yet to the point.
Vint, frankly you know full well that the "Blueprint" is no and
was not agreed upon by the stakeholders and is as such
just another disguise to disenfranchise stakeholders/users
from participation directly. Therefore what you suggest below
for Shangi will be yet another disaster and a complete sham.
So Vint, like Stuart, you are not very good at deception.
Of course we all know that given Worldcom's recent
fraudulent business and financial practices...
If ICANN, including yourself Vint want to be transparent,
open, and gain some creditability you cannot dictate through
closed or hand picked committee's a path for reform. That
is not reform but continueing a closed process... Stop it!
vinton g. cerf wrote:
> thanks for a most thoughtful note. While there is plainly room for
> a good deal of debate on all these topics, your analysis comports with
> the discussions I'm familiar with in the reform committee's work and
> illustrate the need for pragmatic accommodation and compromise. I
> sincerely hope that all the interested parties will recognize that
> and choose to work constructively within the framework that is agreed
> upon in the Shanghai meeting.
> At 02:50 PM 8/1/2002 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Dear Vint, Stuart, and Alejandro:
> >I wish to express my concern regarding the ill-considered Names Council
> >Resolution on Reform submitted today.
> >The Blueprint on Reform called for a 16-member Council and thoughtfully
> >recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time as new
> >provisional constituencies become voting constituencies. In calling for
> >three representatives per constituency the Council has failed to bear in mind
> >that others are soon to join the mix, groups such as:
> >Academic and public entities
> >Individual domain name holders
> >Consumer and civil society organizations
> >Small business users
> >Each one of these provisional entities will require a seat at the table and
> >representation in equal measure. Under the Council's plan we would begin
> >with eighteen members representing the current constituencies, another three
> >voting members elected by the NomCom, and one non-voting liaison appointed by
> >the GAC -- that's already 22 members, and yet we have to make room for
> >perhaps 12-15 more members as the provisional constituencies are added.
> >This is a patently unworkable situation (as we can all appreciate that overly
> >large Boards or Councils can quickly become cumbersome and unwieldy tools
> >that will not serve our organization's need for efficiency).
> >With regard to the issue of geographic and cultural diversity, as long as the
> >constituencies remain international, and as long as constituencies continue
> >to elect their representatives, such representation will remain international
> >in character and will reflect the cultural diversity of the community.
> >With regard to the final points in the Council resolution:
> >1. Workload: The workload of a council member may readily be shared with
> >non-Council members thus enhancing involvement at the constituency membership
> >level. Council's argument does not justify the need for an additional
> >constituency voting representative.
> >2. Participation: Participation in Task Forces need not be limited only to
> >Council representatives (opening up the process to others would enhance the
> >Council's claim to truly having a bottom-up process), and candidly, Task
> >Forces have already proven themselves to be a failed policy-development model.
> >3. Outreach: Outreach to multiple regions may be accomplished in a number
> >of ways, including the Business Constituency's own rapporteur approach in
> >which not all such rapporteurs are Council members -- additional
> >representation cannot be justified by this argument either.
> >The ERC's vision of a reasonably small Steering Council has merit (if you
> >actually believe that such a Council actually engenders some type of "added
> >value", a highly debatable point).
> >In my estimation, the Council has not thought in terms of the best interest
> >of the Corporation, choosing instead to advance their own constituent
> >self-interest. I encourage you to reject their recommendation.
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html