Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
may be the real reason why the ICANN does not release the @large list is to
be found somewhere else. From what I gather election.com came across their
worst nightmare ever with their 50% discounted 2000 @large election. The
information provided by the ICANN was a mess and they - say the hearsay -
never addressed properly the requests from election.com.
1. as we have no reason to suspect that the Staff is not serious, we may
deduct that the lists are beyond recovery and that releasing them would
create a bigger scandal than not to release them. This may come from the
unexpected number of @large registrations they did not addressed properly.
2. it is unlikely that election.com would accept to discount anything to
the ICANN, doubling the budget planned by the Staff.
3. it is likely that the exposure given by Lynn's scheme to the ICANN and
to the possible @large election would lead to far more than the ALSC 5.000
target. If you fear 150.000 again at $1 for election.com and may-be at
$1.5/$ 2 for collection, mailing and management, this is a too large a cost.
In that perspective, what I suggest from the begining seems to be
expectable. That everyone registered on one of the ICANN gouvernance
mailing lists (ASO - PSO, ISOC, W3C, PSO, GA, ALSC) make the @large. This
is Esther's initiative: 600 to 2000 people on Joop's list. This permits the
BoD to decide in Shangai to use this list for a quick election:
- no commitment on future yet a real election
- no risk of vote capture
- no identification needed
- no protestation - those who could protest would vote
- anough balancing between activits and techies
- a very short campaign preventing mad schemes to develop
- a continuation for the board squatters
An easier solution would even be a statu quo referendum for consensus by
It is also a good reason why my proposition to seriously structure the
@large on a Local Internet Community basis is dangerous. This would give
real weight to the @large, to the ccTLDs and to the Govs (together with the
ccTLDs). Today the game is to make believe the Govs could support the
ICANN. If they were supportingthei @large, it would kill the scheme.
On 16:41 18/03/02, Kristy McKee said:
>Vint, I appreciate you taking the time to write; however you have added
>nothing to our conversation and have not even attempted to answer the
>Only your private little group believes the At Large was a one time
>thing. No one in the general public has that understanding.
>I do understand the ICANN staff, like the board members are technically
>challenged, especially in terms of handling databases.
>Perhaps you could reach inside yourself and provide us with a truthful
>At 10:32 AM 3/18/2002 -0500, vint cerf wrote:
>>no I can't because the board's view was that elections were infeasible
>>at the moment. The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
>>seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
>>the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.
>>At 09:03 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>> >Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
>> >component, and given that the current AtLarge
>> >Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
>> >as to the proposed time frame for said election component
>> >to be announced?
>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
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