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

[Eric Dierker]

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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)
>

Lets call it poor wording and acceptable divergence of opines.

>
> 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.
>

Yea I think you make an important distinction which I glossed over.  full
concurrence here with the caveat that in some ways like GA rules our
infrastructure stinks.  I do include policy and rules in infrastructure.

>
> >  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.
>
>

OK except it takes the same money to build a line that is used by 5 as it does on
that is used by 1,000 and so cost spreading is relative.  But I bow to your
worthiness and my lacking in this regard.  See why I beg of you to take over
Finance.

> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>

Proof once again I need to stick with policy and development and leave finance to
Jeff.

> >
> >
> > 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.
>

No you are not a dotcommoner.  Nor are your professional engineers.  Even I am
creeping out of the mold,
it is a funny dichotomy that as we learn enough to represent the dotcommoner we
become not one.

>
> >  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.
>
>

This is a great example of divergence of opine.

> >
> >
> > 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
> >

Jeff you just argued your way into becoming our finance director.  I look forward
to working with you and learning from your expertise.  I think you and I need to
get together for a game of Horseshoes.  You drink your tea and I will find comfort
in my beer and the loser will be declared the leader of dotcommoners ;>}

May your children love and respect you.

Eric