Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain Name: icannatlarge.org

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good morning, Joop:

    Your analysis of the dichotomy that we are facing is interesting and
probably quite accurate.  There are certainly two separate camps here.

    Your suggestion that we develop two mission statements and then vote for
the most popular, has the benefit of democracy but also suffers from the
biggest problem with democracy...  alienation of the losing side.

    Isn't it possible for us to have two (or three) strings to our bow?
What if we used the democratic vote to determine what our umbrella policy
would be, but had a team of ICANN reformists who worked from within or
alongside ICANN, and the rest of the organization working from without (or
as Jim Flemming would have it, by-pass ICANN completely)?  Surely there is
nothing wrong with having two action plans, coordinated to achieve our
goals.

Regards, Ron


Joop wrote:

>I don't know if the following proposal will deserve anyone's gratitude, but
here is a way forward to consider:

>We clearly have members who have joined us to continue the battle for
representation in ICANN. This group ought to come up with a mission
statement that sums up their mission and purpose of organizing, not
excluding the possibility of being a pressure group outside ICANN.

>(there are also pure ICANN supporters among our members, such as Esther
Dyson and Mike Roberts.
I do not know if they are on this list--please Thomas, once
again,  consider making the list of participants here public.)

>Then we have members who dream of the wider mission, the farther future and
who abhor even the association with a corrupt ICANN. This group too, ought
to have a champion who will draft a satisfactory mission statement for such
an option. (Richard?)

>The two alternative mission statements can be developed here on the open
list or in the Forum (first drafts are already there) and when there are no
more amendments  *both* get submitted to the membership for a binding vote,
together with a summary of the arguments for each.

>In order to give the organizing efforts a chance, the losing minority
commits not to fight a re-litigation of the "battle of Mission Statement"
before there are at least 2500 members and is in return respected by the
majority as a loyal 'opposition".  Respected for its contributions and help.

>If that would not be acceptable for the potential minority and the two
wings of our membership would prefer to waste their energy on internal
fights for control of icannatlarge.org, it is better to separate early and
just form a loose "alliance of  common purpose".

>That way no energies will be lost in wrestling with the wrong enemies.

>Of course you may see protests from those who prefer to see internal fights
prolonged.


--Joop



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