Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation

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

comments below!

----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>

> Let's keep the
> mission close to something like, "promote user representation and
> participation in DNS management and Internet governance."
>
> Hans

Hi Hans!

Sure, keep this as our focus and primary mission, but we'll need to wrap it
up in more accessible language and broader terms if we want to genuinely
attract and represent a really broad electorate of internet users (rather
than just a few ICANN watchers)

"promote user representation and participation in DNS management and
Internet governance."

Of course we want to do this, of course this is a major focus, BUT...

these words just don't mean anything to most internet users - honestly - as
someone coming from "outside" this whole ICANN/@large world, I can honestly
say that 18 months ago I didn't even know what DNS meant. I didn't know who
ICANN was.

Even if we "educate" people, what on earth is going to make them interested
enough to sign up to this "mission"?  As long as the Internet works, they
can't really understand there's any problem at all. So what I'm trying to
say is... yes, you and Judith are right to be well-focused because we don't
want to dissipate our energies... BUT... what counts is how we "package"
this mission.

If we use the right wording - wording which captures ordinary people's
imagination - then we'll get 100,000 members without much bother. If we
don't, we'll be lucky to get 10,000

And this is a serious issue of scale. It's just not good enough to say that
"informed members" who really want to engage in the ICANN issues is what
matters. (They will anyway.)

What matters, I'm convinced, is to demonstrate to the press, to US
government, to ICANN, to the world, that we have built a valid electoral
system which represents really large numbers of the general public.

Numbers DO matter, because we have to outflank ICANN. If we stay small,
we'll be lumped together and marginalised.with all the other groups. We have
a real opportunity now to carry out a leap of the imagination and fill a
vacuum : we have a platform, we have issues, and we have the opportunity.

I must add, out of respect to everyone, that although I will fight all the
way for a broader organisation, I will accept a narrower mission statement
if I have to. But I will then try to pursue an outreach policy with
like-minded people, packaging this mission in broader terms, and setting out
to attract 100's of thousands of people in the end anyway.

The really exciting prospect for this organisation is trying to do something
new and dynamic : using the technology to create a new kind of community.
And, in the process, demonstrating just how small and illegitimate ICANN
really is.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hans, I'm sure we're discussing the same fundamental principles, but there
are all kinds of different people in this organisation with different
expectations. So I suggest you fight the narrow specific battle (a battle I
entirely agree with) and myself and others with a similar view will fight
the broad battle to recruit large numbers of people. I personally believe in
the medium term that the battle will be won, not by finely-tuned arguments
with ICANN on the old battlefields, but by dagger-like attacks like those,
combined with the "overwhelming force" of a worldwide public movement.

Probably, both strategies are needed. But I urge that we don't jeopardise
either.

Kind regards and good wishes

Richard Henderson




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