[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Strategy
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 13:43:41 EDT
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
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: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org