Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Focused Mission Statement (was: point of order)

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

Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  I prefer your and Eric's mission statements to Joops and Ron's.
Ron's is however closer to your and Eics, Judyth.  Joops on the other
hand is more directed towards and emphasis on ICANN @large
as the ICANN BOD and staff would define it.  As many of us
in this ICANNATLARGE.ORG effort have experienced, that
process or processes by which the ICANN BOD and staff
dictate the rules without stakeholder/user determination and approval,
is increasingly becoming restrictive and thereby unrepresentative
of any and all of the stakeholders/users.

  Hence I for one cannot support Joops mission statement in it's
current form as I believe it is a poor compromise, as you eluded
indirectly to, Judyth.  Well done!

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 08:54 -0400 2002/10/14, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >    I did not suggest that we abandon democracy.  Your response using that
> >premise has generated a lot of mail, but does not correctly characterize my
> >post.
>
> I think we've got a slight misunderstanding here. Let's clear it up before it gets worse.
>
> Joop's posting says four main things:
>
> ITEM 1 - We need a democratic structure: that is,
> >> If we abandon democracy, we undermine our raison d'etre.
> >> I am not interested to stay with a group with "leaders" that do not want
> >> to listen to their own members.
> >>
> >> The members must be polled, reliably and frequently, especially in the
> >> beginning.
> >> Polling officers should be elected.
>
> ITEM 2 - I (Joop) am personally for a "narrowly-defined" mission: that is,
> >> My preference is for a focused mission, a battering ram that remains
> >> aimed at the weakest point of the "Global Internet Governance" fortress:
> >> ICANN's obligation to be a membership organization.
>
> from both of which follow his ITEM 3; that is, a recommendation that we use a combination of a democratic process (voting and/or polling) to consult the whole membership, and the existing Web forum on the Mission, to choose a mission statement:
> >> Here we are, members who signed up to be counted as "ICANN AT Large"
> >> members  having been corruptly excluded and sidelined by ICANN.
> >> I feel that, without going back to our members and *ask* them,  it is
> >> nothing short of betraying them to now insist on diluting the focus and
> >> instead  using their names to take on "the whole bad world".
> >>
> >> May I point again to the beginning that has been made by Cecily Wood,
> >> Sotiris, Walter Schmidt and Vittorio trying to find a more focused
> >> formulation. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7
>
> and finally, his ITEM 4 presents what he (Joop) thinks the mission statement should be.
> >> Preamble:
> >>
> >> This organization (ICANN At Large) has grown from the original commitment
> >> of ICANN and its Memorandum of Understanding with the Unites States
> >> Government to be a membership organization.
> >>
> >> Our initial membership has voted to have an internet presence named
> >> icannatlarge.org
> >> Both our name and our website domain may be changed when they would be no
> >> longer relevant.
> >>
> >> ********
> >> Our Mission is to create a legitimate and respectable  structure that
> >> allows for the democratic consultation and representation of
> >> Individual  Internet users in global internet governance bodies such as
> >ICANN.
> >> ********
>
> Ron Sherwood's response was:
> >    Your recognition that there are two factions within the membership that
> >have opposing views on the methodology we should adopt to achieve our goals
> >prompted my response. What I suggested was that we do not have to be so
> >inflexible that we adopt a single measure that alienates one group of
> >members in favor of another.
> >
> >    The goal as I understand it, is at-large participation in management of
> >the Internet as a global resource.
>
> Personally, I'm always inclined to make a clear distinction between a *mission* and a *mission statement*. The latter is a relatively recent innovation -- in effect, to come up with a statement in no more than 50  words which states the goal in a manner anyone can remember. The actual *mission* is longer and articulates the principles and methods in general terms.
>
> Ron has, in effect, suggested a *mission statement*: that is,
>
>    "ICANNatLarge.org seeks to create and maintain an environment for
>     at-large participation in management of the Internet as a global
>     resource."
>
> which I personally would amend: "at-large participation" doesn't mean anything to people who aren't already familiar with ICANN and its use of the term. The statement would probably work unamended if the mission were defined strictly in terms of ICANN since then it would help screen out people like myself who are looking for "universal saffrage" for Internet users rather than an organization to criticize ICANN's behaviour and/or work within the structures it sets up. My personal version would be something like:
>
>   "ICANNatLarge exists to create and maintain democratic means by which
>    all Internet users can participate in the governance of the Internet
>    so as to recognize its importance as a truly global resource."
>
> NOTES:
>
> 1. Not "ICANNatLarge.org" -- that's just a domain name, not an organization,
>    and we'd need an organization with chapters all over the world, not just
>    a single Web-site, to do the job.
> 2. "Democratic means" because we would be trying to put something in place
>    which allows people to participate without dedicating their lives to
>    reading list mail or forum postings, and not all of it will be online.
> 3. "Governance" rather than "management" to make it clear this organization
>    isn't just about voting on who gets to be a registrar or how the root
>    servers will be set up.
> 4. "Truly" to emphasize that we want the Internet to be for everyone, not
>    just the multinational businesses that make money from it or the more
>    affluent and/or technically-adept folks who are already online.
>
> Neither of the two approaches to a mission statement is "wrong" and it's entirely possible we could come up with something better if we tried. But I'd like to draw a distinction between a mission statement (something that tells people immediately who we are), a mission (something that constitutes the commitment that new members agree to share) and a slogan (something that's meant to be short and catchy and used as a marketing tool whether it means anything in particular or not).
>
> Ron says:
> >    Let us assume that the majority of our membership is in favor of our
> >organization addressing ICANN and Internet governance from a standpoint of
> >massive external consensus, having sufficient weight to demand meaningful
> >participation (or by creating a DNS system that bypasses ICANN altogether).
> >The creation and management of such a group could prove to be extremely
> >difficult, and the time-line to success extremely long.
> >
> >    Now suppose that a smaller group of members is in favor of working from
> >within, or at least working with, ICANN to achieve the same goal.  What is
> >wrong with our organization adopting both modus operandi as a dual strategy?
>
> and I agree. The "broadly-defined" mission includes both and can encompass others as time goes on. The "narrowly-defined" mission excludes vast numbers of people from participating in any meaningful way but is a valid approach of what you want is to enlist people who find it frustrating to deal with ICANN or believe they have better ways to handle the technical side of the DNS system.
>
> A "broad" definition calls for serious organizing and a long-term commitment by this organization. The "narrow" mission statement articulated by Ron is a bit broader than Joop's and does not tie the organization to ICANN exclusively, which I think is all to the good.
>
> >The membership can vote democratically to approve either method or both.
> >This is not an abandonment of democracy, it is an inclusive solution rather
> >than an exclusive one.
>
> Here I would beg to differ at least somewhat. In a direct democracy (and note that we do not have a representative democracy in this group yet), the role of the citizen is not limited to "yes, no, or stay away from the polls" on a predetermined motion.
>
> What I'd like to see myself is a process like the one used in the foundation of a membership-based non-profit organization -- that is, a mechanism whereby the Constitution/Articles of incorporation and subsequent bylaws are subject to point by point debate and amendment so that the finished document represents the best thinking of the group as a whole. When the results of such a process are put to the membership for ratification, there is usually no problem obtaining a 2/3 majority since by then everyone knows exactly what they are committing themselves to and agree that it's the right thing to do.
>
> That kind of process is applicable to just about any grassroots organization. It's not as quick as having these things written entirely by committee and then presented for ratification as a whole; however, the extra time involved has certain benefits in terms of consensus-building and strengthening the ties between the individual members and the organization they've chosen to belong to.
>
> The mission statement might be a good place to start. If we can get agreement on that, we'd know what is and is not to be included in the declaration of purpose which is the first part of any Constitution or Articles of incorporation.  If not, I'll try to find time later in the week to draft a set of bylaws for the mythical organization I would be inclined to join myself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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