Re: [Membership] ICANN, MAC and membership@icann.org: WHY IT ISN'T WORKING

["Dr Nii Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com>]

Are domain holders the only entities that ICANN activities affect? Who are
the others? Should the others who can be clearly identified be members of
ICANN? How do we get future members of ICANN hooked in?

Nii


>Diane Cabell wrote:
>
>The consensus is that the At Large membership should extend beyond the
>Category of domain holders.
>
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>Diane and all,
>
>With all due respect: whose consensus? I recall the requirement for the MAC
>members to be ready to work in a fishbowl environment of transparency.
Apart
>from your own postings, there has been very little evidence of other MAC
>members involving themselves in the debate....
>
>COMMENT:
>
> I have been following this list for some time now.  I find the posts
lively
>and informed.   But for what purpose are the posts? If it is to vent,
>membership@icann.org is a wonderful forum.  If, however, the purpose is to
>participate in the deliberations and decisions of ICANN, well, then, that
>seems to be an entirely different matter.
>
> I don't know about the others posting here, but I often feel that I am on
>the playing field while ICANN and MAC leadership quietly observe from the
>stands, picking what they wish to watch, ignoring what they wish.  And, at
>the end of day, deciding what they wish.
>
> I agree with Joop Teernstra.  This is not transparency.  This is not
>participation.  It appears to be a charade.
>
> I hope I'm wrong; ICANN is involved in such important work.
>
>
>
>
>
>