Kathy and all,
Thank you for sharing this note with us, as I am sure it will be
helpful for some to get a idea anyway of how these meetings
were conducted and some ideas of what the ICANN membership
organization can or should be about.
In this light I have some comments and questions I would like
to share with everyone and especially with you. (See more
specifically below your comments).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry for delay in posting this report.
> About two weeks ago, I sent a note to this list asking for views on the At
> Large Membership. Thanks to everyone who responded! Your comments were very
> helpful in the preparation of my remarks.
>
> What happened: as you know the Markle Foundation has made a very large grant
> directly to ICANN for organization of the At Large Membership. At the same
> time, the Markle Foundation has given grants to a set of organizations
> including CDT, Carter Center, Common Cause and American Libraries Assoc. to
> help guide and advise it regarding the creation of the At Large Membership.
I am somewhat puzzled as to why it is perceived and/or needed that
any large sum for the formation of the ICANN Membership Organization.
Didn't ICANN already have a Membership Discussion group sometime
back that was a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])? Shouldn't
it be incumbent that anyone and everyone should have had the opportunity
to participate in these discussions? When and where did ICANN
announce and/or post any information about this meeting? Why were
only some "Invited" groups allowed to attend? Or was this even
so?
>
>
> This group then arranged one day where it met in separate conference calls
> with representatives of the noncommercial community, and separately ICANN,
> the technical community and the business community. I was part of the first
> group, noncommercial, with people including Prof. Michael Froomkin, Prof.
> David Post, and Theresa Amato (nader's group) also asked to talk.
I am presuming you are talking about the meeting in LA??
>
>
> We talked about our hope for and concerns about the At Large Membership.
> Overwhelmingly, we told the Markle group that we thought the barriers to
> joining the At Large membership should be low, but that the Membership should
> be given lots of good, concise, and accurate summary materials regarding the
> substantive issues that ICANN is dealing with at the time (materials which do
> not now exist and are actually difficult to write well).
I believe there is some good and concise background information
in the Berkman Center archives of the ICANN Membership Discussion
list. And there may likely still be some additional background in the
older [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well, if I am not mistaken.
>
>
> We also overwhelmingly told the group that we thought the expectations of the
> Membership were too great. Based on the rhetoric we had heard, we felt that
> the At Large Membership was being viewed as the magical piece of ICANN which
> would make all other problems go away.
By "Too Great" what do you mean here specifically Kathy? Are you
talking in terms of the size of the ICANN membership? Or???
> We pointed out that even if the
> Membership is well and carefully formed, protecting democratic principles --
> and putting good practices into place -- remains a concern throughout ICANN
> including in General Assembly and DNSO, in comment periods before the ICANN
> Board, etc.
Good point, and yes, I believe this is certainly a serious concern, especially
in terms of what has occurred of late on the DNSO lists and at the LA meeting.
>
>
> The noncommercial segment of the Markle At Large Meeting then ended and we
> visitors left the call. I had earlier asked if I might stay and just listen
> to the subsequent discussions of ICANN leaders and technical and business (so
> I could let you know their views). I was told that only those groups chosen
> by the Markle Foundation could participate in these discussions.
I think that not allowing anyone to continue to listen at least was
completely inappropriate, and engenders, or at least makes me believe
that the ICANN and now it seems the Markle Foundation is not to
be trusted as to accountability. In other words, I smell a rat here.
I am sure this rat will appear sooner or later. >:(
>
>
> Accordingly, I would like to ask if Andrew Shapiro of Markle or Alan Davidson
> of CDT would like to share some of the thoughts they heard from other
> communities and their views of this meeting.
I would further like to ask if this conference call was recorded? Otherwise
any information we receive from Andrew Shapiro is second hand, and less
reliable. Isn't it in the ICANN bylaws that these meetings are supposed
to be recorded? I believe it is. And if I am not mistaken, they are
supposed to be published within 7? days...
> Clearly, the At Large
> Membership is an area of concern to this Constituency. Thanks for your input
> and work in this area. We understand that you will probably not respond
> until next week, after the Thanksgiving Holiday in the US.
>
> regards, kathy
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
