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

["Lawrence Solum" <lsolum@earthlink.net>]

While I see the logic of Jeff's position, I believe that the resort to
Congress is a huge strategic mistake from the point of view of advocates of
"At Large" participation in internet governance.

If the at-large constituency successfully gets Congress focused on internet
governance issues, it is unlikely that the outcome will be a happy one.
Congress responds primarily to organized interest-group pressures, and the
at-large constituency is unlikely to fare well in the competition for
influence on congressional processes.

If the United States Congress fully realized the leverage it has on internet
governance issues, there are many possible unhappy outcomes.  I won't recide
the parade of horribles--they are obvious.

On the larger issue, there is not question but that diversity of global
representation is an important value in any at-large organization.  We are
swimming against the tide when we seek recognition as a representative of a
broad global constituency.  Leadership that is parochial will only make the
effort to gain legitimacy.
Lawrence B. Solum
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 S. Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

Phone: 213/736-1060
Fax: 253/295-5718
Email: Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Izumi AIZU" <izumi@anr.org>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "Kay Bailey Hutchison"
<senator@hutchison.senate.gov>; "Richard K. Armey" <tx26@legislators.com>;
"Phil Gramm" <phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] My choices for a leadership team


> Izumi and all stakeholders or other interested stakeholders,
>
>   The US is and has been taking the lead with the very creation
> by presidential order from former President Clinton.  The fact that
> ICANN is a california non-profit Corp.  The fact that California is
> a state in the United states, dictates directly that although ICANN
> is a organization that should encompass all nations and stakeholders/users
> that ICANN must adhear to the laws, ethics, and morays of the
> United states. So yes indeed the ICANNATLARGE.COM should
> if it is wise to directly and separately interface as directly, completely
> as possible with the US Congress and Senate as often as possible.
>
>   This should not however preclude or in any way deter the
> ICANNATLARGE.COM from also interfacing with other
> countries government bodies that do deal with Internet related
> issues.  INEGroup does this on a regular and natural basis
> as a matter of course.
>
> 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? Is there any venue for non-US
> > citizens to be heard there directly? Is there any merit over demerit?
> >
> > 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. 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > In your cultural context, maybe that is all right and make perfect
sense.
> > But there can be other environment where war is more serious matter
> > of life and death directly, while finding out the right solution as to
> > how and who to manage the domain name system and other critical
> > resource of the Internet is important, but not in the same line.
> >
> > Danny, sorry I don't mean to make an artificial argument with you
> > for the sake of argument, but I thinks we should look at our
> > issues in a broader and global context.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > izumi
> >
> > At 20:41 02/07/16 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > >Izumi, you wrote:  << dealing with US Congress is not the business of
the new
> > >organization, at least directly, in my opinion. >>
> > >
> > >I fail to understand your reticence to fight for the At-Large in all
> > >pertinent venues.  We are clearly in a war with many battlefields and
it is
> > >our collective job to defend the rights of our community no matter
where that
> > >battle may take us.  If you wish to fight only within the Halls of
ICANN that
> > >is your privilege, but decisions are being made in other arenas which
will
> > >impact the ICANN organization and which will affect the general user
> > >community.
> > >
> > >I respect the effort made by Jamie Love and a host of NGOs to
communicate
> > >their concerns to the Department of Commerce (that must craft a new
> > >Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN in the immediate future) -- and
it is
> > >only by the exercise of such "influence" that representation for the
At-Large
> > >can possibly be secured in a future form of ICANN.
> > >
> > >You and your peers have already lost the battle for representation
within
> > >ICANN's tent.  Please don't stifle the efforts of others that might yet
> > >succeed where you have failed.  The power of the US Congress might be
the
> > >last bastion of hope for any chance at ever seeing an At-Large director
once
> > >again on the Board.  Don't discount that option prematurely to your
detriment.
> > >
> > >The "business" of the new organization continues to be the effort to
seat
> > >user representatives on the Board, whether that means lobbying members
of the
> > >Nominating Committee or using Congressional leaders to fight for
"tasks" in
> > >the MoU which mandate such representation.  I don't intend to lie down
and
> > >tamely accept the edicts of this incumbent Board as sacrosanct.  The
fight
> > >will continue, and I hope that the leadership of this group is prepared
for a
> > >tumultuous fight.  The At-Large has been reduced from a promised nine
to
> > >zero... I don't intend to accept that situation, and I would hope that
you
> > >would be prepared to fight for what is right and to keep on fighting
until we
> > >are accorded our due.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>




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