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

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

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  The second stratagy suggestion you make is the only one that has
a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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

--
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