Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

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

Dear Norbert, Vittorio, et al:

    Is it unreasonable that individuals, who really care about at-large
influence over governance of the Internet, could be a member of two
organizations?  Is it not reasonable to want to help influence from both (or
many) points of view?  Is it not possible for both sides to be right?

    Surely, there are strong reasons to attempt to guide the process from
the inside. Just as there are strong reasons to believe that it may not be
possible under existing circumstances.  Both lines of logic are valid.
Surely it is logical to have the issue addressed from both viewpoints?

    It is NOT reasonable however, to expect a single organization to take on
both tasks simultaneously. But, there is no reason for an organization to
charge its membership with the task of deciding one way or the other. Let us
keep our membership intact to the extent that we may, and simply do the job
that we were formed to do.  ICANN has taken the initiative of addressing the
at-large issue from the inside and many users will join organizations that
will become a part of the regional system.  Other users will not believe
that the ICANN initiative will provide any real value to end-users and will
look to an independent organization to represent them.  The 1000 or so
members of this group have demonstrated repeatedly that they are among this
latter group.  Let this group represent them and let those who wish to join
the ICANN inspired group, go the way of ICANN.  I am sure there are many
(most?) who will hedge their bets by working actively in both camps.  There
will be many more who will not be so active, but who will want to
participate in both organizations and watch where the chips are falling.

    The goal, surely, is to actively support at-large influence in the
governance of the Internet.  An independent at-large is necessary, in my
opinion, to prevent the monopolistic nature of an ICANN controlled at-large
representation.  This does not, however, invalidate the attempt by ICANN to
develop a structured at-large community of advisors.  The two could, and
should, co-exist.  Time alone will show which method of representation will
prevail.  It is my belief that the independent group will, at the very
least, force the ICANN structured group to remain honest.

    Let those of us who wish to do so, support the ALAC and the RALOs.  Let
icann-at-large be the organization that independently represents those of us
who are concerned about limitations to our sphere of influence in a top-down
structure.

Ron Sherwood


----- Original Message -----
From: "Norbert Klein" <nhklein@gmx.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <vb@bertola.eu.org>; <bkleinwaechter@web.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation


> > Dear Vittorio,
> >
> > as a former panel member, who has followed the discussion and was rather
> > silent the the last weeks, I would support a quick and simple procedure
to
> > ask the 1000+ registered icanatlarge.com/.org members, whether they have
> > joined the emerging organisation to work within or outside ICANN. Time
is
> > more than ripe to make a clear distinction. As far as I see the process
> > there will be unavoidable a split: there are a number of
> > people/unsers/members who want to work within ICANN and the emerging
> > RALOs.
>
> Dear Vittorio,
>
> I want to join with Wolfgang and others in the suggestion to come to a
vote
> which opens two clear alternatives. But I have still difficulties with the
> wording which would be most appropriate for such a vote.
>
> Wolfgang says: "whether they have joined the emerging organisation to work
> within or outside ICANN" - but that was not an issue when the majority of
the
> people joined: not "within" or "outside," but in order to maintain an
> important element in ICANN: the At-Large-Membership, which was in danger
to be
> pushed aside - and all know what happened since.
>
> I have been silent for a long time because I never could understand what
an
> At-Large organizatikon would be which would not work TOWARDS IMPROVING THE
> ORGANIZATION HANDLING ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, and a lot of other
things
> which are handled, at present, by ICANN.
>
> Maybe I did not read well what was said, but I never got a clear
> understanding what those of the present membership who want to work not
only "outside"
> of ICANN but who want to work for a kind of world body doing the task
ICANN is
> doing (for better or for worse) really envision to do, and to achieve.
>
> So I got the impression that the alternative for the question in the
ballot
> would be something like:
>
> "to continue to work for the democratic control of ICANN"
>
> or
>
> "to create an independent world wide organizations of Internet users so
that
> they can raise their common concerns through this new organization."
>
> I don't think the alternative is "under" ICANN or not - but whether the
work
> is aiming at ICANN or not. I do not see - for me - much value at this
point
> of time in not focussing on ICANN. What ICANN decises, has quite an impact
on
> all of us communicating, and I think there is a lot to fight out on this
> field.
>
> I have been busy - in addition to my normal day-to-day work - in
> Asia-Pacific wide concens in the NGO and civil society worlds about the
preparatory
> process for the World Summit on the Information Society, and I now got
also a
> fellowship support to participate in the Tokyo meetings, for the NGO part
> starting on the 11th, and for the joint governments - private sector -
civil
> society conference from 13 to 15th.
>
> Also here it is obvious that it is so difficult for some government
> participants to accept the full participation of civil society (which was
envisaged
> in the original UN General Assembly decisions).  Again some asked: should
we
> rather walk out? A large number of NGOs in Asia have instead tried to
> elaborate our conccerns, to write them down, and to try to get them into
the
> discussions at Tokyo.
>
> Thanks for all who have volunteered to put time and energy into the
At-Large
> development, and through the present struggle.
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> Norbert
>
> --
> Norbert Klein
> Open Forum of Cambodia
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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