Re: [atlarge-discuss] top down or bottom up?

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This debate was and has been settled many times over.
either we are a republic or a monarch.
democracy comes after the establishment of the structure.
History is too long to rewrite even on the net.
e
> Please forgive the delay, everyone -- I've been ill and overworked and
> simply couldn't keep up with the revived discussions. I've
> written replies to several messages and then held back on sending
> them because later correspondence either said what I wanted to
> or rendered it superfluous. I'll try to keep this one brief and
> cogent.
> 
> At 22:01 -0400 2003/01/08, Ron Sherwood wrote:
>>Forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but the debate seems to
>>be
>>over which of the two subject line approaches (top down or bottom up)
>>is >the most likely to succeed.
> 
> Actually, I think it is a little more complex than that. I see
> two intertwined issues:
> 
> 1) a) do we work within ICANN's vision and try to mitigate its
>    anti-democratic approach while conforming to its preferred
>    (openly anti-democratic) structure, or
>    b) do we set up a member-based organization for all Internet
>    users which can engage with ICANN or other bodies without
>    necessarily conforming to ICANN's preferred structure
> 
> and
> 
> 2) a) do we want our organization (however structured) to
>    focus on reporting to/meeting with/lobbying against ICANN, or
>    b) do we want our organization to undertake a broader mission
>    which might include (for example) asking that other bodies
>    involved in aspects of Internet governance, communications
>    rights, etc. take the needs of the worldwide Internet-user
>    community into account in their deliberations and regard
>    us as an umbrella-group speaking for that community --
>    that mission being approximately "whatever a membership of
>    interested Internet users decide is appropriate" and the
>    organization structured so as to allow the user community
>    itself to make those decisions.
> 
>>    Surely, if the ICANN top-down ALOC / RALO method of providing end
>>user
>>participation is successful, then it will embrace and include
>>participation
>>by any organization that is suitably organized from the bottom up. That
>>>must include the icann-at-large membership who are skeptical of
>>abandoning >their separatist beliefs.
> 
> I think Ron makes a valid point about ICANN having to recognize and
> include user participation, even from a "bottom up" organization
> [N.B. we're not one yet!] but I think there is more involved here
> than "separatist beliefs".
> 
> The arguments we hear from ICANN, the WSIS people, etc. are not
> "Internet users and civil society have no right to ask for
> representation" but things like "they're not as capable as we
> are of making sensible decisions" and "it's too time-consuming,
> complicated and expensive to allow their representatives
> to have a voice (let alone a vote!) in the deliberations".
> 
> I don't believe ICANN really gives a damn whether the "at large"
> Internet users get to elect their representatives or decide on
> their mandates. Its concern is to
> a) ensure that those representatives, however elected or
> appointed, will stick to ICANN's own agenda and modus operandi
> b) ensure that those representatives are permanently outnumbered
> by the industry insiders who treat the Internet like their
> personal passport to fame, fortune, and political power
> c) ensure that there is just enough lip-service paid to democracy
> that the U.S. Department of Commerce will believe efforts are
> being made and ICANN's powers should be renewed and extended
> d) ensure that whoever has to carry the expense and do the work
> of organizing the Internet-user constituency, that won't be
>something they have to pay for. (I strongly suspect that the
> main reason ICANN decided to shut down its At Large operation
> --which, after all, fulfilled items a-c-- was because the
> process was labour-intensive and expensive and they'd rather use
> their time and money for something other than democracy.)
> 
>>    If, on the other hand, the ICANN / ALOC / RALO method fails due to
>>an
>>unwillingness to accept a bottom-up process, then the separatist
>>icann-at-large group should be in a position to simply move around
>>ICANN or
>>to fill the void that they have left.
> 
> The problem I see with this is that although ICANN is obviously
> more comfortable with hand-picked appointees than with elected
> representatives of Internet users,
> 
> 1) the method would still yield the same internal and external
> pressure on ICANN to democratize itself, in which case the
> ICANN Board would have to discredit it (as with all previous
> forms of representation) and try another tack to get the answer
> that their "private club" approach is just fine;
> 
> 2) the same arguments could be levelled that this organization
> was actually representing only a very small fraction of the
> much-larger constituency of Internet users (even 100,000+ was
> considered "unrepresentative", you may recall) but this time
> the attack would be against our "civil society" endeavour
> rather than something one could counter by pointing out that
> ICANN itself was responsible for limiting the numbers who
> could register to vote
> 
> and that whatever the grounds for declaring the initiative a
> failure, the results would be the discrediting of the people
> involved in this organization and the disillusionment of
> enough of the more-motivated Internet user community, such
> that any further efforts at organizing would be even harder
> than this one! That is, if we work for a year or two to make
> ALOC/RALO function and it can be attacked on any grounds at
> all, our organization couldn't "just move around ICANN" and
> carry on since it would be too closely tied to ICANN and
> too obviously a failed effort to enlist further support or
> obtain credibility with any other bodies.
> 
>>    The most likely scenario is that the two will merge
>>eventually, and that the ICANN that we know will become the
>>ICANN that we want... simply BECAUSE icann-at-large became a
>>powerful bottom-up organization and was able to
>>carry the will of the end user.
> 
> It may be that I'm old and cynical compared to Ron but I
> honestly doubt that this organization can get off the ground
> by trying to serve two masters or that ICANN will ever
> become what we want if we do.
> 
> The position of strength is that of an independent organization
>structured as a democracy for Internet users themselves and
> exerting pressure on their behalf on ICANN and other bodies so
> as to democratize their decision-making.
> 
> The position of an organization committed to working within
> ICANN's unilaterally-declared rules and without reference to
> all other issues pertaining to the rights of individual
> Internet users is much weaker, and I doubt it can ever
> interest enough Internet users to make any difference at all.
> 
>>    I believe that the wisest users will be those that
>>participate in both organizations and carefully judge their
>>policies and receptiveness to user input.
> 
> Forgive me, but if we are really concerned about representation
> for all Internet users, it doesn't make sense to frame our
> potential membership in terms of cherry-picking the "wisest"
> who have the time and energy to participate fully in two or
> more organizations. To me, "all" means ALL -- trying to set
> up something which gives every Internet user a vote in
> determining what will be said and done on behalf of all.
> 
> To me, that means setting aside the "you need to know all
> about ICANN and the DNSO and the ISOC and ... before you
> are worthy" and the "only people with a strong knowledge of
> all the technical underpinnings and a financial interest
> can understand" arguments. What can work -- in my opinion,
> the ONLY thing that can work -- is an organization geared
> from the ground up to informing all Internet users in terms
> they understand, listening to their questions and complaints,
> and offering a venue in which their concerns are paramount
> and the working method is to pull together and elect people
> who will represent the concerns and opinions of the majority.
> 
> Naturally, anyone anywhere can put up a Web site claiming
> to be whatever they like. However, how could we claim to
> represent anyone if we can't even claim our own Panelists
> have taken the pulse of the membership and are carrying
> the membership's message to ICANN meetings??? And how could
> we claim to be organizing regional organizations which will
> have a voice within ICANN if we can't so much as organize
> ourselves to represent our own current members???
> 
> I can say categorically that nobody in this group has the
> authority to speak for the group at this point, and I am
> completely uninterested in being part of a body-count
> used to justify the personal opinions of whoever can afford to
> fly to ICANN meetings and pretend to be our representatives.
> Either we will become a viable voice for all Internet users
> or we won't and, if not, there's no point to my hanging around
> here when I could be spending my time doing something more
> constructive than substantiating the myth that two dozen
> people who can't even agree amongst themselves to put a
> vital issue to a vote will eventually reform ICANN.
> 
> Sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
> 
> 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."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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