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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Preamble / Mission Statement

Richard's comments on Cecily Wood's proposal are marked
with *******

----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Cc: panel list <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-panel] Preamble/Mission Statement

This non-profit organisation is the collective voice of the individual
users of the Internet and World Wide Web.*****good, I like this
because it is broad and states what we should become... of course,
we are not yet THE collective voice!*****

Its mission is:

***** (4) should come first... you should start with the broader
and then move down to the supplementary issues... the technical
administration of the internet - while important - is not our primary reason
for existence IMO... nor will it attract many people*****

1) To monitor and advise on the technical administration of the
internet to make certain that the needs and rights of all users,
independently from their country, language, race, sex, social status
and wealth, are not abrogated by technical, business, military and
government interests;
*****good, but I prefer "determine" to "advise"*****

2) To ensure that the social costs of the technical administration of
the Internet are not detrimental, but enabling, and are fairly
supported by those making a business of it; *****good*****

3) To promote, support and exploit those advances in the Internet
technical and organizational structure that benefit all individuals;

4) To defend the personal freedom of the individual users of the
Internet and prevent any restricted group, political entity or
business interest from controlling the Internet itself.
*****As I say, this clause should come first*****

This will be practically accomplished by participating to the process
of administration of the Internet by the following means:

A) This organisation is to serve as the At Large component of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and will
elect the At Large Directors to ICANN's Board.
*****don't like this wording - as you might expect, I'm not comfortable
with this - this is anyway out of date and out of step with the political
unless expressed as a demand and goal*****

B) In the event of an ICANN reorganisation, this organisation is to
work toward preserving an end user function in ICANN, and serve as the
end user component of ICANN's replacement.

C) As the world-wide collective voice of all internet users, this
organisation may also decide to extend its efforts beyond ICANN.

Now, there are two fundamental issues that we need to debate before
actually formalizing a statement:

1) Do we think we are the *only* user organization to be formally
recognized in ICANN (ie we want to act as "At Large SO"), or do we
want to be just one of many "user forums" that ICANN will use to gain
input from?

Cecily's draft goes for the first option. Sotiris's one, as far as I
understand, goes for the second.

*****Richard: we should aim to become the largest user org to be
formally recognised by ICANN but the facts are clear, we are not the
ONLY org, and we are not THE at large ! In the end what counts is
who we are, and what we become ourselves - we must not kowtow to
ICANN and try to become something for them (and we should by no
means marginalise or exclude similar orgs with similar goals)*****

2) Do we want to exist specifically as an ICANN-related organization,
or as a more general purpose Internet users organization?

*****Richard:This is the point I may feel strongest on : if we exist
as an ICANN-related organization, we narrow our scope, we diminish
our target audience, we start to inhabit a cut-off world the rest of
humanity has little interest in... I am adamant that we should be much
broader in our mission and scope and membership... ICANN must
only be part of what we determine to do. I know many people
originally only signed up for an ICANN-specific org, but I believe
many people may grow to realise that the only way to confront ICANN
is to reach beyond them to our own power-base : the millions of ordinary
internet users... we can't limit our mission to ICANN in my view*****

Also in this, Sotiris's statement is strictly related to ICANN, while
Cecily's one is broader, though (and I really like this) it combines a
first part made of general statements with a second one that states
relationships with ICANN and/or what to do if ICANN is restructured or

*****Richard: Yes - I like the idea of two interfaces : the big picture,
is populist and broad; and, as a smaller expression of our mission and
the war we wage to demand user representation inside ICANN...
representation on the basis of election, not delegation or nomination*****

Personally, I would go for the first ("SO") option in issue #1, and
for a half-way solution in #2, as the one drafted by Cecily, maybe
lowering down the tone a little and making it clearer that we just aim
to be practically participating in ICANN, and not to be ruling the
world :-)

*****Richard: it's not a question of "ruling" the world, but "representing"
the world (on internet matters)... just "practically participating in ICANN"
means operating within THEIR structures, necessarily referenced to THEIR
(corrupt) power-systems, and almost certainly bereft of the very executive
authority that should belong to the internet users of the world. To just
participate in ICANN and limit our mission to that... is to be rendered
powerless and marginal to most people's interests or experience*****

.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220

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