Re: [ALSC-Forum] Consensus

[Jeff Williams]

Denise and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  It is obvious that the ALSC's "Final Report" does not reflect the consensus
of the participating stakeholders that are identifiable, ergo those
that are on this forum or have forwarded to this forum their positions
as reflected in the Polls taken on this forum.  Hence, again you continuing to
assert otherwise does not meet the test of historical fact.  Please
discontinue such nonsense.

  However it may be true that the ALSC's "Final Report" is the only
documentation that the ICANN BoD in it's current skewed configuration
will except.  Most of us here know from the beginning that this exercise
of the ALSC might very well be one of parroting what the ICANN
BoD and staff in it's current skewed configuration wanted in the first
place...

  It is also understood likely that the outside efforts such as Jefseys
Pinder's and seemingly now Joops will not meet the approval as you
indicate below, of the ICANN BoD and staff in it's current skewed
configuration.  This will of course be no great surprise if indeed
things turn out as you indicate, Denise.  None the less several
ALSC members have called for just such efforts to get underway.
Hence your comments would seem to be confusing if not purposefully
misleading to the point of pandering.  If that is so, please discontinue
such pontificating as it has little benefit to the stakeholders....

Denise Michel ALSC wrote:

> Please read the final report, Danny.  The ALSC clearly states there, and has
> stated in several public venues, that it has not identified a consensus, but
> offers ALSC recommendations "as having the greatest potential for consensus
> among all interested parties" (see
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/index.shtml).
>
> About 40 people shared their views in this forum prior to the final report's
> submission and *half* of all of the posts came from *6* people.  You may
> view this as a consensus opinion representing 400 million email address
> holders, or 44 million domain name holders, or even the 143,806 people who
> registered or 34,035 people who voted in the 2000 At-Large election.  The
> ALSC does not.  Nor was this consensus reflected in the 16 outreach events
> conducted by ALSC members. At a critical time in ICANN's history, the ALSC
> has proposed what it believes are practical, executable, effective
> suggestions that could gain consensus support.
>
> You may disagree, of course, but may I humbly suggest that, instead of
> counting forum posts, you show us another approach that has garnered the
> necessary support?  (Hint:  9 At-Large Board seats, worldwide email-based
> elections, and an At-Large funded by "somebody else" does not seem to have
> enough support to be approved by the Board).
>
> Denise Michel
> Executive Director
> At Large Study Committee
> dmichel@atlargestudy.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:14 PM
> Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Consensus
>
> >
> > Esther,
> >
> > Could you elaborate further on your comment that "I think it's time for
> the
> > ALSC to stop looking for an illusory consensus to present to the board"...
> >
> > The ALSC was chartered to forge a consensus on the best method for
> > representing the world's Internet users as individuals ("At-Large
> Members")
> > within ICANN.  That was your task.  At this late date, are you now
> claiming
> > that the Committee has no consensus to report?
> >
> > When an issue is under consideration for a lengthy period of time,
> community
> > consensus can usually be determined by a review of the comments tendered
> on
> > the public record.  The public record of comments presented to your
> Committee
> > amply demonstrates that the community expects nothing less than the nine
> > At-Large Directors promised.  If you have evidence to the contrary, let me
> > humbly request that such be documented...  otherwise, please present to
> the
> > Board this  consensus view of the community (even if it is at odds with
> the
> > recommendation of the Committee).  Anything less would be disingenuous.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208