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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joop and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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.

  Not us sanctioned, bu US created is the correct way of stating this.

>
>
> >  Is there any venue for non-US
> >citizens to be heard there directly?
>
> No, and it will be a long march to create one.

  There already are several.  INEGroup is just one...  Hence
Joop you are showing you ignorance here...

>
> Icannatlarge can become a recognized NGO of the United Nations and an
> associate member of the ITU.

  Becoming an NGO in the United nations at this juncture would be a
political mistake as well as a very difficult thing to accomplish.
It took the ISOC several years to get that done, and now that the
ISOC no longer allows individual members to elect their representatives
or vote on anything, it's legitimacy is substantially in question.

> 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?

  One cannot reasonably make the argument that comparing
ICANNATLARGE.COM with an international tribunal dealing with
war crimes.  However Joop as to that Tribunal, the US has recognized
it.  What the US has not yet agreed to is a International Civil Tribunal
or World court on civil legal precepts.  However I would guess that
even that will be done in the next year.

>
>
> >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.

  Indeed this is so true.  As one that is and has been in some of these
practices Joop, you are in a pretty good position to know of course...

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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



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