RE: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

This is a general post regarding this thread:

1.  First, I respect Vivek's choice, and the frustration that drove it, and
I hope he stays actively involved.  However a general call for mass Panel
resignations is not only uncalled for but irresponsible.  I've already
discussed why this is at length in a previous post.  We need to move
forward, not back to Square One!

2.  IMO, the polling booth should be left on ICANNATLARGE.COM, under Joop's
wise fosterage, and a link added to ICANNATLARGE.ORG to access it.  Members
should be able to initiate polls in their own right, and we should set up
rules to that effect.  Regular polls would be a valuable tool for gaguing
concensus.  Votes, however, need to adhere to established rules.  But I see
no reason not to set up a secure sign-in (which Joop likely already has!)
for members who wish to vote online instead of through e-mail, and hold them
via both e-mail and polling booth concurrently.  We should always encourage
multiple means of communication.

3. Besides holiday-season distractions, I think lot of the Panel "apathy"
people are seeing is really miscommunication between panel members, which
can be attributed to the fact that the Motion process -- that had been
working so well at first -- has been abandoned to some extent.  Rather than
burying them within a Discuss list post, fellow panel members with motions
should be making them singly in the Panel list, labeled MOTION in the
subject, like we were doing before, if a panel vote is the intent.
Otherwise, how is Vittorio supposed to catch them?!

4.  "What's next" was a recurring theme.  Here's my thoughts:

	-  Obviosly, we need to get a mission statement out as soon as possible.
Some are asking to poll the membership for thought.  I believe we've seen
many thoughts already on the subject, and already have the ifo we need to
act.  But I'm willing to approach the membership once again if that's the
Panel's consensus.  But if so, we need to poll them NOW, within a day or so!
Then the Panel needs to get to work on drafting sample mission statements
for a vote of the membership.  As part of this process we should also
resolve the "on our own", "with ICANN" or "both" debate.  I'm obviously for
the latter.  In fact, I'd rather label my position as "in everybody's face"!
If there is a Internet governance discussion that impacts users (which
*don't* apply, I ask you?!), then we should have somebody there!  But we
need to know the will of the membership.  Richard Henderson asks: "Why
should we fear finding out exactly what our membership stands for, what they
feel, what they want?"  Indeed!  Let's find out!  And act accordingly.

	-  Directly after putting our mission statement to bed, we should be
working on our bylaws and incorporation.  Michael Geist made a fine
submission already.  Others have submitted good ideas, and yet others  have
pointed to good bylaws and constitutions used by NGOs and international
agencies.  I challenge anyone who posted ideas for our bylaws, and anyone
else who wants to be involved in this process, to join us on the WG-Bylaws
list by going to
http://icann-at-large.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-bylaws_icann-at-large.org and
subscribing.  Then upload your submissions ASAP, so we can begin the
discussion!

	-  Policy formation is next, and I recommend we set up a WG-Policy group
and mail list to server as a temporary steering group to focus this
organization on the first few "hot button" issues we want to advocate a
position for or against on behalf of our membership.  And these should not
include "RALO or no" and other such ICANN drivel!  They should be
substantive Internet governance issues (registrar malfesance, the hijacking
of the domain name space by intellectual property advocates, the slow pace
of new gTLD adoption, etc.).  We have concentrated far to long exclusively
on the "nuts and bolts" of organizing.  Some of us need to start laying the
groundwork for the real battles ahead of us: going head-to-head with ICANN,
the Internet industry, NGOs, governments, etc., over Internet issues.  After
all, isn't that the true reason for this group to exist in the first place?

With over a thousand members, and mayby 100 active members, there is no
reason all three efforts can't run concurrently.


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



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