Re: [atlarge-discuss] Atlarge-discuss Summary 18 Aug - 24 Aug 2002

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

Giampaolo and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Giampaolo Bonora wrote:

> atlarge-discuss list
> Archives: http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/
>
> Summary, 18 Aug 2002 - 24 Aug 2002
> Nearly 250 messages from 33 senders
>
> Joanna Lane asked Joop Teernstra as acting webmaster to remove an entry
> without name - only firm's name and generic job description - from the
> list of members registred at icannatlarge.com. In a subsequent message
> she also considered the possible objection that in this way anonymous
> contributions could be discouraged.

  Joanna should have known better than this given her past strong defense
of anonymous and private speech as well as that guarantee as supreme court
cases have clearly stood behind as part of anonymous free speech under
the first amendment..

>
>
> >So, to recap, the view from here is that at this early stage, only
> >individuals who are willing to go through an ID process get votes, and not
> >those hiding behind corporations or other organizations, and that WG-ID is
> >being set up to help us clarify those issues and develop appropriate
> >policies that first and foremost protect the public interest - not the
> >corporate paymasters.
>
> [Vittorio Bertola sended on Aug. 20 the initial message of WG-ID working
> group: http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00889.html]
> In this thread there were agreements with Joanna and discussion on the
> problems raised in this case, notably the difference between anonymous
> speech and vote, and the consequences of free speeching in different
> countries. Bruce Young, noting that "there are people living in parts of
> the world whose complete participation may depend on their government
> not knowing who they are", wrote:
>
> >I'd even go so far as to say that, unless political exigencies mandate it,
> >we should permanently stick to real names.  For those in localities where
> >free speech could lead to jail time (or worse!), we probably need a
> >pseudonym process, where members can participate with a unique, consistent
> >"pen name" that protects their true identity.
>
> A similar thread continued specifically about the use of proxies, with
> different opinions. Walter Schmidt:
> >   ...as an alternate suggestion:
> > "A tells B - B quotes A but does not give identity of A"
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos:
> >Nobody is going to be a proxy for anyone else when it comes to
> >voting. Voting members will have been properly and duly verified and
> >identified and YES some of their personal info must needs be stored in the
> >organization's member database.
> Sotiris proposes to evaluate soon the concept of Web of Trust and asked
> for other opinions answering to Vittorio's position:
> >the Web of Trust seems to be a strong candidate. However I'd like to have more than one method, as I think
> >that no method will be able to cover 100% of our potential members.
>
> Roberto Roggiero, joining WG-Outreach, wrote:
> >I think it is not only important to define the name of our Organization, but also the
> >Vision and Mision of the Organization. IMO these are key elements to start any
> >outreach effort, and the basis for any publicity materials.
>
> YJ Park posted the Draft Agenda for the August 20 Panel Teleconference,
> and JFC. Morfin exposed his reasons for not participate, asking for
> comment about his ideas:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00854.html
>
> Later, he confirmed his opinion that this is an expensive and
> centralizated-network orientated tool, giving other opinions and his
> position in case of panel vote under this system.
>
> After the teleconference, Joanna sended quickly to this list a minute
> she wrote with Richard Henderson:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00923.html
>
> Before and after the teleconference the discussion continued about the
> Organisation's name.
> Sunday 18 Joanna proposed a panel resolution to choose, and to be sure
> to have members' support.
> Vivek Durai asked for an amendment to not include the TLD in the name.
> The subsequent discussion reflects how much one would stay away from
> ICANN beginning from the name.
> According Jefsey this is not on top of  our priorities:
> >we have no other name that @large :-) The rest is detail [...]
> >We do not need a name. We have one for a long the other try to steal from us.
> >We only need domain names for a site we delay....
> he repropose, with some agreements, his idea of regionalized At Large
> entities all pointing to the international body.
>
> The Report to the ERC from the ALAC Assistance Group, posted by Vittorio
> Bertola, started hot discussions in parallel threads.
>
> Danny Younger made use of heavy words to comment this assistance, and in
> a separate thread:
> >There is, however, a need for a Supporting Organization that can serve as an umbrella group for
> >*all* other user groups within ICANN [...]
> >I would propose a roundtable conference to launch a Supporting Organization.
>
> Paul noted the regional representation, in his opinion the only way to
> ensure that the interest of users worldwide are represented in a
> workable way:
> >The problem with one man one vote is that the voice of the
> >regions with the highest internet penetration may well
> >drown all other voices, in a tyranny of the majority.
> This lead to reactions, to which Paul replied that even at the heart of
> the US govt. there is a "regional" provision that gives each state equal
> representation still using one person one vote, and, on ICANN debate:
> >Certainly one person one vote would be better than the
> >current proposals - a few people with ALL the votes.
> >Tyranny of the majority might be better than tyranny
> >of that particular minority.
>
> Richard posted his detailed analysis of the Report:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg01014.html
>
> The Report, now posted on the official ICANN's site, had other reactions
> and comments.
> Judith Oppenheimer forwarded to Assistant Secretary Nancy Victory the
> comment of Professor Jonathan Weinberg on ICANNwatch as one of the most
> concise and spot-on summation of ICANN's At Large activity.
>
> Danny Younger forwarded an excerpt of Ross Rader's blog on Tuesday, and
> another on Thursday. Both started a thread with some answers. Ross has
> just commented in his blog at byte.org
>
> ISOC bid for .org being favored, Sotiris and Jefsey raised some
> questions:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00906.html
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00984.html
>
> Jefsey nominated Erick Iriarte Ahon to the DNSO election and discussed
> with Bradley D. Thornton about the origin of the Internet.
>
> Some other messages, pointers and forwarded materials.
>
> ------------------------------------
> Giampaolo Bonora - bonora@nettuno.it
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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