Re: [atlarge-discuss] My choices for a leadership team

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:01 a.m. 17/07/2002 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>I agree most of what you wrote, but I do not understand a single point:
>
>Why we should care about US Congress?

The reality is that ICANN is a USG-sanctioned creature even if it 
deals  with now global resources.

>  Is there any venue for non-US
>citizens to be heard there directly?

No, and it will be a long march to create one.
Icannatlarge can become a recognized NGO of the United Nations and an 
associate member of the ITU. It can also become a member of the 
Non-commercial constituency of the DNSO in case it cannot win the struggle 
for direct Board representation in the short run.
It has many other options too.


>Is there any merit over demerit?

I don't think it's a matter of merit, if I understand you well. Just realism.
Look at all this from the US point of view.
If  Congress is not even in the mood to recognize an International Tribunal 
for War crimes with jurisdiction over its citizens, would it recognize an 
International body, *where individuals are represented*, dealing with 
rulemaking affecting US companies, when such a body would be remotely 
supra-national and outside of its control?



>In fact, when in Cairo CDT and other made proposal to change
>in-direct to direct election of AtLarge, I was quite uncomfortable
>to hear the "US Domestic" political languages and I told some of
>the people of that team about that. I heard that they almost
>pushed that item to the board "if you do not accept this, then
>we will go to appeal in the Congress", something like that.
>Whose congress? was my question. If they argue about the
>management of .us, then that is fine. But if  we talk about the
>global resource, at least US congress is not the only nor central place to
>mention... isn't it.

If you talk about *old* global resources, such as space, the moon, the air, 
the polar ice and the oceans, you are certainly right.
The Internet, on the other hand, was created locally...


>So I can accept some of the new panel members
>are Americans, of course, and some might try to lobby US congress,
>that may be OK, but please do not make it as the central agenda.
>Think globally, and we may also ACT globally, too, whatever that can be.

I agree that we should not *only* focus on the US Congress.

>And, I personally do not like this struggle to call it as "a war".
>If this is a "war" then I will not participate. War sounds like we have
>enemies and allies. We have to "kill" the enemies then.

Izumi, call it a "struggle" (Ar. jihad <g>) if you will, but surely you 
have seen  over the years that there are proponents and opponents of the 
idea of global individual representation, agent provocateurs and saboteurs, 
(character) assassinations, betrayals and stabbings in the back...
All  in proportion to what is at stake.


--Joop


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de