Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority

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

We DO need to wait to see if DoC attach any significant conditions to the
renewal, but it does on the face of it seem like a fait accompli - it was
always the most likely outcome : USG sees ICANN as the best way of retaining
control of the DNS, and ICANN and DoC sort of need each other - it's mutual.

The implications are, as Vittorio indicates, that ALAC will proceed (highly
controlled and only granted extended influence if the ICANN Board feels sure
it cannot subvert their powerbase). The whole ALAC initiative was a
wonderful way of "letting DoC off the hook" by projecting the image which
both ICANN and DoC could sell, that they were committed to user
participation.

The whole thing is about top-down control.

In the longer term, as Danny Younger suggests, the only alternative seems to
be claims by governments in the international community that they should be
involved to a greater extent. At present GAC has been the ALAC-style "front"
for USG and ICANN to claim that international governments are involved. In
the future, and with the likely growing impact of ccTLDs, not to mention
pressures for alternative roots, that may not wash.

So I see two strategies:

1. To participate within the ALAC processes, from a strongly independent
position - as Vittorio seems to have been suggesting. The blunt reality of
this is that we are on a hiding to nothing in the short term... everything
will be orchestrated on ICANN's terms and conditions, because the ALAC will
be an ICANN structure which they can use and develop however they want.
Indeed they can choose to amend or renege on their promises for it, as they
have done in the past in relation to the AtLarge movement. There are a few
small benefits which may justify participation: it affords a presence and a
(very small) influence for the AtLarge within the ICANN structure; and in
the event of further pressure in the future for user representation, then
the AtLarge community will be in place to fill that role. The big
disadvantage is that the very act of participation will appear to add
legitimacy to ICANN's reforms and its image of involving users.

2. The second strategy (which may take place at the same time) is the
constructive development of a network of user communities - in which,
frankly, icannatlarge.com will only be one constituent. This network of
internet user communities should be developed way outside ICANN, and should
be wide-ranging... MUCH, much more wide-ranging than the narrow ICANN-based
mission some people desire for icannatlarge... A multi-faceted network of
user communities, dealing with all issues to do with Internet use, freedom,
access etc etc (but separate communities may focus on specific issues)....
such a network could develop an identity of its own and come to stand for
internet users. I hoped that this was the direction that icannatlarge.com
would take, but I understand why many people wanted it to stay "narrow" in
its mission. The trouble with the "narrow" mission, however, (as we have
seen) is that the governance of the DNS is just NOT an issue which excites
many people as long as their computers work - and ICANN/DoC have largely got
their way by default because the public and the media just aren't really
interested. Therefore, my personal inclination is to move towards the
"long-game" (since, frankly, I think we are defeated in the short term,
unless DoC produces surprise conditions). I look towards a multiplicity of
Internet User groups, that may be drawn together under some kind of
umbrella - ... an alternative ALAC outside ICANN if you like, but addressing
many many more issues (of which ICANN is just one)

As things stand we have 20? 30? 40? people engaged in our organisation, many
of them bemused and unsure what we stand for. My assessment at this time, is
that there just isn't the interest in who runs ICANN or the control of the
DNS. Or else, we have so far not started to communicate, or educate.

I think there is a strong case for jettisoning the
one-organisation-overseen-by-panel approach and instead simply celebrating
our diversity and setting up multiple communities, who can become enclaves
which come together for convocation from time to time.

Even on the Outreach issue, where I have been very vocal, I am beginning to
think that I might be wiser simply to try to build up a UK community right
where I am, with groups I know and understand - rather than trying to
orchestrate a global icannatlarge.com

I'm undecided about that, but my confidence in the "central" organisation
has been shaken by the small number of people who post messages and engage
(or indeed endorse any candidate). I've also been vastly put off by some of
the acrimony intruding in my inbox which seems to negate the values I
thought we were pursuing.

This is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can still proceed
step by step. But as Judyth has expressed, I'm only prepared to expend
energy (more importantly, sacrifice time I owe to my wife and children) if
the project is manifestly going somewhere. Otherwise, I would choose to try
to build community elsewhere (though to similar ends).

Right now - and notwithstanding Elisabeth P's misgivings - I believe we
cannot justify delaying a ballot on our name - so we can brand ourselves,
create identity, and start reaching our effectively.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority


On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:53:36 EDT, you wrote:

>The U.S. government will renew a California nonprofit's authority to manage
>the Internet's global addressing system, a top Commerce Department official
>said today.

Oh well - looks like "plan A" will be a complete failure. Now, would anyone
consider working a little more strictly with the present ICANN? This doesn't
mean that we have to stop our efforts - for example, this press release
might simply be a "ballon d'essai" to see how hard reactions are, so we
should definitely react to it with some complaining letter to Ms. Victory -
but this shows even more that the idea of the USG stepping in to grant more
democracy in ICANN is likely to be proven false, as I have been saying for
the last two months.

So, we do have to keep with our plans, but we cannot refuse the fact that
ICANN (unless some very unlikely sudden changes) will still be keeping the
strings of the DNS at least for the next year, and possibly forever.

(Ah - on icannwatch someone said that if the USG won't do it, then we should
ask the ITU. Don't even think at it... the ITU is even more business- and
government-controlled than the present ICANN.)
--
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
--------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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