[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] Strategy


The debate between us really centers upon which is the most effective 
short-term and long-term strategy.  In the immediate timeframe we know that 
the US Department of Commerce through the exercise of its oversight role is 
paying close attention to the comments posted to reform-icann.org.  

It would have been possible to have had hundreds if not thousands of letters 
posted to that address all stating that we are in strong opposition to any 
plan that does not include an elected At-Large component that functions as a 
counterweight to the special interest groups that populate the Supporting 
Organizations.  It would have been possible to make it crystal clear that we 
don't want the Lynn Plan or any variant of the Lynn Plan.  The DoC would have 

Instead, you and others have taken the position that it is more important to 
build still one more user group that has an interest in ICANN.  Your 
long-term strategy is being played out at the expense of short-term 
initiatives.  ICANN may be stone-deaf... but can you make the same claim 
regarding the DoC that monitors the commentary?

You seem to be fixated on what you perceive to be the "authority of a large 
membership".  ACM has a large membership.  They came out against the Lynn 
Plan.  Did anyone on the ICANN Board shudder and say to themselves, "oh no, a 
large membership organization doesn't like what we're doing..."  PFIR came 
out with a statement, and Farber is well known to Cerf and the Board.  Is the 
Board any more reluctant to proceed just because another long-established 
membership organization is in opposition to ICANN management efforts?  Civil 
Society groups are also large membership organizations and many of them have 
come out in opposition to the current reform initiatives.  Does the mere fact 
that they have an open and large membership afford them any more influence?  
Is the Board quaking in the boots because someone has spoken with the 
authority of a large membership?  Get real...

"Ideas" don't require institutional backing.  Purportedly this group 
represent individuals, yet you thwart the "individual" response by pushing 
these folk into a "collective mode".  No one is prepared to speak up unless 
it is within the anonymous context of a group position... and that group 
position can't be articulated until you arrive at some arbitrary "number" of 
members (stupid idea if you ask me).  

The problem with most large groups is that they never get around to doing 
anything useful for the people they represent. Look no further than the IDNO. 
 It raised a sizable membership at one point.  Did it ever once take a 
position on a registrant domain name issue?  Did it ever once propose a 
solution to a domain name problem?  Did it ever once produce a single 
position paper on a domain name problem?  Did it ever organize a 
letter-writing campaign?  Did it ever sway the opinions of the ICANN Board?

By the time you get yourselves organized, the At-Large issue will already be 
a moot point.  You are missing your only opportunity to successfully 
influence the three parties that will determine the outcome for ICANN and the 
At-Large:  The Department of Commerce, the U.S.Congress, and the ICANN Board. 

The clock is ticking.  Of what value is your noble effort if the At-Large is 
declared dead before you are even organized?  Rather than, as individuals, 
making your outrage known and communicating with these parties, you are 
collectively hiding behind an organizational shield and doing nothing in the 
short-term event horizon that will significantly influence the key 

Your long-term strategy has served to deny necessary short-term initiatives.  
This course of action hurts the At-large.

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