Re: [atlarge-discuss] Sorry, I must decline

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Marc

I respect your decision, and your feelings have resonance for me too. I
agree greatly with many things you said. I believe in the end, any
organisation that demands full representation for the millions of internet
users, in the running of the Internet, has to do so from a position of
numerical strength.

More on this later.

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>
To: icannatlarge.com election <alexander@svensson.de>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 3:05 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Sorry, I must decline


> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, at 00:22 [=GMT+0200], icannatlarge.com election
wrote:
>
> > You have been nominated for the icannatlarge.com panel.
>
> > Please send an email (CC atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de)
> > and either ACCEPT or DECLINE this nomination.
>
> Tonight I have decided that I must decline the nomination, and not
> merely for lack of time. I am by now convinced that hours spend
> _within_ the ICANN process are wasted, most probably.
>
> Though I am unsure how internet governance can find shapes that
> contain guarentees (or at least possibilities) for the safeguarding of
> the interests of all internet people, alongside ICANN, apart from it,
> and if necessary against or without it, I have no other option, simply
> for lack of faith in the present endeavour, than to say: I cannot
> help.
>
> Although I have never, I think, felt a dogmatic need to clutch to
> worldwide direct elections as the only way to give ICANN legitimacy, I
> cannot engage actively in any organization or group any longer, unless
> it is clear about the complete lack of this legitimacy in the new
> ICANN as envisaged by its present Board.
>
> I feel the way to get out of the situation we are now stuck in, is not
> playing the AtLarge game of the present Board, especially since the
> rules of the game are not clear from the start, and are unilaterally
> determined by those that, in majority, are against user influence.
> Participating in at-large.org will only breed frustration. At least
> for me.
>
> I have been considering to suggest or help starting up something
> rather different, an organization that can operate from a position of
> strength, and, if needed, go against ICANN. That is clear about that
> option from the start. That will not refuse to communicate with ICANN,
> but will deny ICANN the right to tell internet users where they can
> play and where not, what they can play and what not. A consumer
> organization, since ICANN is more and more just protecting those who
> make money from the Net, and managing a cartel, so we cannot vote with
> our money. But I do not like this perspective much. We are users, I
> would like to think, which is more than just consumers.
>
> Maybe I am a romantic who happens to be in a bad mood. So, do not let
> this message discourage all of you who have more or a different faith
> than I. Mine is too vague right now anyway to be useful. I would not
> mind at all, if icannatlarge.com's success in the coming months, year,
> proves that I was wrong tonight.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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