THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now. As I said to Joop,
sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
earlier today. We are not trying to "fob you off" with this argument; we
are trying to figre out how to achieve the proper balance, and, like you, we
think that a larger membership is better, all things being equal. One
trade-off is size of membership in numbers vs. involvement/knowledgeability
of members. (Of course, you try to move the trade-off curve as well as move
*along* the curve.)
Esther Dyson
At , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dear supporters of the idea that Individuals need their representation on
the DNSO.
>
>Just a brief message at this point. When I'm back in New Zealand I will
have the chance to digest all that has happened a bit better.
>
>It has been an emotional up and down.
>Yesterday, when we were handed the Board resolutions, I was dismayed that
there was absolutely nothing about our application in it.
>
>Not even a polite acknowledgement of our efforts and our application for a
separate constituency.
>
>I called Esther and asked if she could give me a private indication of what
was wrong with our application to deserve such a treatment.
>
>She preferred to refer to our application in public at the presscon the
next day.
>
>This is what happened just now. She gave me the chance to speak again, this
time with the press present.
>
>I did so and generated a little deeper debate. Let's hope the press deals
with it intelligently.
>
>The upshot is, that ICANN did make a (not-published) resolution on our
application.
>"We have looked at it, debated it at length and decided not to take any
action on it at this moment".
>
>The reason for this stance was also explained.
>Balanced representation on the ICANN board (individual users vs. commercial
stakeholders)
>has to be achieved both through the at -large membership and the DNSO.
>
>What will be accepted in the DNSO will depend on how finally the membership
will be qualified.
>
>It has not yet been decided that there will be an "all users" membership,
even though that is the recommendation of the MAC.
>
>We just have to be very vigilant that we will not be fobbed off with this
argument.
>
>We need to grow exponentially before we are considered at the Santiago
meeting on 24 August.
>We have to present ourselves as a critical and responsible partner in the
process of building fair representation in Internet Governance.
>
>We can do it.
>
>Cheers,
>
>--Joop--
>
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
