[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Fw: Wolfgang, I think we should keep our distance from ICANN
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Wolfgang, I think we should keep our distance from ICANN
- From: "Richard Henderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 00:10:37 +0100
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
HelpRe-sent in more readable format:
With reference to Wolfgang's orderly comments on ALOC
participation, I agree that any representatives we send should
carry with them a clear mission statement.
However I feel less comfortable with the extent to which he feels
we should frame our organisation within ICANN structures and
ICANN goals. (I don't want to misrepresent Wolfgang here, so
what I'm saying concerns MY views, not HIS.)
I believe any ICANN at large Supporting Organisation will,
frankly, be an ICANN-side initiative, driven to meet an ICANN
agenda. With reference to the setting up of an ALSO, the
mandatory two thirds of Board members are unlikely to back
anything unless it is indirectly under their control, or the control
of their staff.
My concern is this: we cannot allow our group to become
"hemmed in" by ICANN rules and structures, organisation and
bylaws. It would be better, in the short term, to be "locked out"
if it had to be so.
We MUST maintain independence and separation from ICANN,
and merely interact with it as we choose. The ICANN leadership
is not worthy of trust, and we MUST keep a very clear distance
from their discredited organisation which I and many others regard
as cynical and corrupt.
Referring to other issues raised by Wolfgang, I favour some kind
of incorporation/legislation as an independent "not-for-profit"
organisation, but I am opposed to membership fees. They will
inhibit outreach on a popular scale, discriminate against the less
affluent, and effectively define membership. I would prefer the
concept of voluntary membership contributions (but not involving
any special privilege). Donations from eg Registries and Registrars
should be strongly discouraged in my opinion. Bodies which have
commercial vested interests should be kept at a distance.
Wolfgang rightly tried to focus us on what our purposes should be,
as a step towards defining mission statement. He asked whether we
wanted to HELP ICANN to reform, or whether we wanted to
KILL ICANN off. Frankly, I think these are issues largely beyond
our powers, or our immediate scope. Our Agenda should focus on
who WE are - representatives of the internet-using public, creating
a platform for the public voice, and building a moral authority (based
on numbers) for the case for "democratic control of the internet" (to
quote Bruce Young). Wolfgang refers to the need for workable tactics.
I don't think we're in a good tactical position, and we could expend
ALL our energies jumping through ICANN's hoops for no gain,
which is probably exactly what they'd like us to do.
So OUR identity should be determined and driven by OUR own
Agenda (who we are, what we propose to become), and the issue
of ALOC participation (though relevant) should remain peripheral
to our main objectives (because it's not a battle we're likely to win
in the near future - ICANN's calling all the shots).
As Machiavelli said, concentrate on the battles you know you can win.
Our success will be determined by Outreach and Scale.