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

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

Lawrence and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

Lawrence Solum wrote:

> 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.

  Perhaps you are correct that conferring with congress on matters
and issues related to the internet and especially the DNS is a mistake.
I doubt that congress or most congressional elected members will
agree with you on this point given the upcoming election and the
2004 presidential election.  Our congressmen know that
the internet and especially the DNS and IP addressing issues
are very important to them should they wish to be reelected.  They
also know, or should know that money is the mothers milk of
politics.  And that such moneys will come directly or indirectly
from stakeholoders/users into their election/re-election coffers
regardless of party or as a matter of party positions on internet
related issues.

However such a concern is far too little and too late.  As you know
the congress is already involved and becoming more involved with
the yesterday announcement of the Homeland Security department
that the President has put out a 90+ page report of which one whole
section is dedicated in Infrastructure, to include in some detail,
the Internet and DNS.  As you should also know, Lawrence,
the "Cybersquating Act" passed by congress also is a prime
example of Congresses involvement.  In addition in June of this
year from June 12-14, the Senate held hearing regarding
ICANN and other internet related issues.

  Therefore Lawrence, I find it difficult to deny the obvious
that any AT-Large effort now underway, including but not
limited to ICANNATLARGE.COM, would be foolish
in the extreme to ignore the US Congress all together, as
well as other countries governments entities now in place
or forming around the globe.

>
>
> If the at-large constituency successfully gets Congress focused on internet
> governance issues, it is unlikely that the outcome will be a happy one.

  Perhaps you are also correct here as well.  So far congress has
not been as welcoming to stakeholders/users as they could or
perhaps should be.  However the "Happiness" in the near term
for many stakeholders/users will certainly in part depend on how
well the ICANNATLARGE.COM and other stakeholder/user
organizations are able to be effective and honest with Congress.
Hence yet again, for ICANNATLARGE.COM not to engage
congress actively, earnestly, and with conviction would be gross
oversight as such with other governments in a similar fashion
would likely leave the stakeholders/users at the mercy of the
now skewed and disgusting ICANN ever-changing and increasingly
disgusting centralized leadership that is accountable to seemingly
no one most especially the stakeholders/users.

>
> 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.

  I think this remains to be seen.  But certainly now the ICANNATLARGE.COM
is not sufficiently funded or organized to compete well.  This of course
can and needs to change as soon as it is possible to do so.

>
>
> 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.

  And there are just as many if not more happy outcomes as well.  The
"Horribles" of ICANN are of course known and being heaped upon
the stakeholders/users in their name without many of them even knowing
it yet.  So the lesser of two evils may be that ICANNATLARGE.COM
and other similar such structures/organizations with a voice and vote
can and should impact on the already heaped upon "Horribles" that
ICANN has put upon them.

>
>
> 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.

  I disagree, as do all of our [INEGRoup] members that we are swimming
against the tide.  In fact the evidence that we see is just the opposite.

>  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
> >
> >

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