Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Direct vs. Indirect elections

[Jeff Williams]

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  We [INEGroup] recognize that much of what Eric is purporting is
in error.  Let me address those specific points of concern specifically
below some of Erics comments/purportments.  (See below Eric's comments)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Thank you Mary and Joop,
>
> We are working in a developing nation trying to develop the IT&T.  The
> costs
> are too high in rural areas and the infrastructure is, let us say
> developing.

  The infrastructure is already there and has been for about 4 years.
In fact one of the well known and excepted factors for the DotCom
deflation is due to more infrastructure that the demand called for.
The problem is more along the lines of distribution of that
infrastructure, than it's availability.

>  So here we come to help make things better.  Well what came
> first the chicken or the egg?  We market from the inside to the outside
> and
> from the outside to the inside.  But we finally recognize that what we
> must
> do is;
> patiently increase usage and infrastructure inside to inside.  Demand
> and
> Supply must rise together and almost equally.  We cannot bring in a
> million
> new users without the infrastructure and we cannot pay for the
> infrastructure without a million new users.

  The number of users is no longer a big factor currently.  Rather again the
distribution of the present infrastructure technologies is.  This to a large
degree due to political wrangling between countries and trade agreements
rather than a lack of funding availability.  Huge amounts of funding now
are sitting on the sidelines.  Availability of funding has not been greater
in about 20+ years.  It is more a matter of knowing how to put together
a plan to quality for that funding and the willingness to do so that
is lacking.

>
>
> So here as there, for those of us who care we are working on our
> infrastructure, the ALSC, and meanwhile working on our increased user
> base.
> We in effect are growing an industry.  Where we have a problem is
> ciphering out where to cut corners as we develop and where we cannot.

  Again we [INEGroup] have not seen or even know of a legitimate
claim to this being a problem as Eric has articulated it here.  Just
in the past two days alone for instance $163m+ in new money
was allocated to expanding the market breadth (see www.ipo.com
for further information), and this is only ONE source of information.
There are many many others.

>
>
> Users versus domain name holders is one such corner.

  There is not such corner.  It is a contrived perception that is being
SOLD to you.  Don't buy into it.

>  My dotcommoners
> understand completely that for now perhaps we must limit voting and
> participation to holders.

  As one of those dotcommoners, I am not buying into this!  Nice try,
no cigar!  Neither are any of our [INEGroup] members or their associates,
customers and users.  Their business is growing, spreading, and thriving.
Some slowly others at a different pace.

>  But we trust that when the infrastructure is
> in place we will be supported by the holders to be included. {I must say
> that the same is not true of the businesses letting in the holders and so it
>
> is a troubling time}  One thing is for certain we cannot go backwards in
> this
> process and I hope this Forum acts as an anchor to prevent that.

  What you are suggesting, although craftily so, is going backwards.  And
fortunately  enough of us Dotcommoners are pointedly aware of this.


>
>
> As we have no real seasons here in San Diego I think of all of you
> enjoying your spring or fall at this time and hope you are prepared for the
> new
> season, as I hope ICANN is prepared for a new season in it's cycle.
>
> Eric
>
> Mary Jaekl wrote:
>
> > I completely agree.  Furthermore, it has been my experience that many
> > ordinary users do not see (or care) what relevance ICANN has to them.
> > They would prefer simply to see results that take their needs/opinions
> > into account.
> >
> > After all, how many microwave oven users would want to join an
> > organization devoted to the design of microwave ovens?  Not many.  Some
> > wouldn't mind filling in the odd survey or participating in focus
> > groups, but further participation is unlikely.
> >
> > Thus, although there are many users, I think relatively few would
> > participate as at-Large members - rather ICANN would need to actively
> > solicit their participation and opinion.  (And personally, I think that
> > is an area where at-large members can have a role)  Those users who are
> > would like to actively participate are going to be those who are willing
> > to jump through a few hoops - and registering a domain name is not that
> > big a hoop.
> >
> > Mary Jaekl
> > Mary@Phibian.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:51 PM
> > To: eric@cafeinternet.info
> > Cc: jandl@jandl.com; forum@atlargestudy.org; Sandy Harris
> > Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Direct vs. Indirect elections
> >
> > At 08:26 19/10/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > >Yes it does Leah,
> > >
> > >But the issue by in large is not being ignored.  Although in principal
> > >we may lose the first round for non domain name holders it will be
> > >better than no progress.
> >
> > This is also my view. By starting to ask for the (near) impossible, you
> > help guaranteeing that we never get user input at all.
> >
> > Domain Name Holders have a strong case as stakeholders in the DNS. They
> > need a channel of communication with the supply -side in this
> > industry, within an ICANN where their vote counts.
> >
> > Wider democracy where Internet users without Domains can have a voice,
> > can
> > come when the first objective has actually been realized and tested for
> > effectiveness.
> >
> > In the non-internet history of democracy too we have seen an
> > evolutionary
> > process.
> > Suffrage rights were first obtained by taxpayers, then by all people
> > with
> > some education, then the women were included, and only then  all above a
> >
> > certain age limit got the vote.
> >
> > --Joop

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208