Roeland and all,
I am in complete agreement here with Roeland, as I am sure many growing
numbers of stakeholders are as well. But ICANN was warned, pleaded with,
ask nicely, and suggested too to not go down the road it has decided to
travel in this process that has become increasingly malignant the further
down this road they go.
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > I respect your opinion, but I am still convinced that there
> > are many more
> > people that are driven away from the discussion list because
> > of the lack of
> > substantial discussion than because of the lack of impact on ICANN's
> > decision of the little discussion that we do.
>
> I am not claiming that there is no effect. Low signal-to-noise ratios are
> definitely keeping a large percentage of folks away from this activity
> center.
>
> However, what is ALSO an effector are certain activities that discredit the
> DNSO and the ICANN.
>
> In no particular order;
> 1) Voting for officers that may be nullified by the NC
> 2) Voting when voters can not be qualified/verified.
> 3) Three levels of voter dilution (or more, I haven't counted deeper, why
> bother).
> 4) General lack of direction (outside of the WGs)
> 5) Railroad trains everywhere.
> 6) No consistent voting process.
> 7) GA members without constituency
> 8) Refusal to recognise other valid constituencies.
> 9) Not even a committee, or WG, on voting procedures/process/methods.
> 10) Recognised constituencies that do not have a visible membership
> registration process (or even a home-page).
> 11) Inadequate constituency requirements.
> 12) Inconsistent constituency recognition.
> 13) Initial NC is stuffed with known sycophants.
> 14) Elected NC is tainted by improper voting procedures.
>
> There is more, but this is bad enough. Add this to the constant bickering
> and you have folks leaving in droves. What has become clear is that ICANN
> and DNSO need proper voter registration and verification procedures/systems,
> without which, the votes blatantly appear to be the farce that they truely
> are. In the WG's, we get away with semi-formal procedures because we know
> each other fairly well and there is a smaller number of us. We are also not
> electing persons to reponsible posts. The WG polls are more of a consensus
> gathering excersize and don't pretend to be voting procedures. Frankly, we
> know better than to claim otherwise.
>
> Personally, my goals for participation are being met. Those goals do not
> include any expectation that ICANN or DNSO has any relevent authority. Nor
> do they include any expectation that either organization will be ultimately
> effective. Ergo, I am not disappointed. Were I to care about those sorts of
> things, I would be greatly upset and disappointed.
>
> Note: After one year,
> 1) the ICANN still doesn't have the technical where-with-all to run even ONE
> root-servers.net machine, let alone manage the entire legacy root system.
> 2) the ICANN/DNSO is still not funded, nor does it have any sort of revenue
> stream.
> 3) not one MAC recommendation has been implemented.
> 4) ICANN has ByLaws that now look like swiss cheese.
> 5) ICANN has no membership.
> 6) ICANN has no Internet community consensus.
> 7) both organizations are still top-down autocracies.
> 8) primary goals of both organizations have still not been met, even in
> part.
>
> I wish you well Roberto, gut yuletide.
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
