Re: [atlarge-discuss] Blueprint Passes

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Vittorio and Izumi,

Your words are heard but their are fatal flaws in both of your reasoning.  However I
see us as coming closer to a consensus on the matter. We must recognize two
essential parts in this argument.

1.    Working with ICANN in having them exert pressure on our internal organization.

2.    Working with ICANN in having us exert pressure on their internal organization.

I am for the latter but until they accept us as an entity I am against the former.
We can concentrate and build ourselves up and work together within and build a
formidable Internet voting and individual base and then we can negotiate from a
position of power with ICANN.
To do so prematurely is folly as has been proven by the ccTLDs and the IDNO and
NomComs.

If we are patient and build it they will come, we will not have to solicit.

Bargaining from a position of strength is always far better.
Lest you are a mongoose it is better not to negotiate with a cobra.

I want to thank and bless all of our panel members working so hard and for all the
Bucharest attendees; your labors advanced and are advancing our cause, and your
sacrifice while it may seem for not is the beginning of civilization in our
Internet. While I still mourn the loss of Peter I am thankful for what appears all
of your safe return from your journey.  We may fight and argue but we are a
community.

Sincerely,
Eric


Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> I just want to say that I absolutely share Izumi's analysis of the situation
> - and I couldn't have explained it so well :-)
>
> I know that what the current Board has been doing in the last years to the
> users representation hurts all of us in the very deep of our hearts and our
> brains. I know that this is the reason why people that are choosing to take
> the dialogue approach, or "let's try hard to get the most we can get from
> ICANN in the present situation, even if it is nothing if compared to what we
> think we should get", are being accused by others of having "sold their soul
> to the devil".
>
> I just want to point out, instead, that this is a very hard choice for any
> of us to take, but we must take it. We have to decide whether we want to bet
> most of our chances on putting external pressure on ICANN until we get
> direct elections and so on, and in the meantime speak words of fire at any
> time during ICANN meetings, or whether instead we want to go there, swallow
> our disappointment, and try to reestablish a loop of reciprocal trust
> between us and the rest of the ICANN community, starting with one damn non
> voting seat in the Board and keeping on until we can get more and more
> weight. (And by the way, remember that in politics weight is not always
> quantitative - often it is based on the aura of respect, friendliness and
> credibility that the single persons can build around themselves.)
>
> I am a supporter of this latter policy. If in the next elections the
> majority of the members will want to follow the former one, I will not
> complain - I will accept this decision and act consequently. But, once for
> all, we need to use these elections to understand which path do we want to
> follow.
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:41:46 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >Anyway, I think the At-Large Advisory Committee idea is
> >not in anyway the best or ideal, and since all the details are
> >not discussed or showed at all, it is understandable to deny
> >this and call for direct representation and participation.
> >
> >I would take the same stand if I were in Accra, though. But it
> >is also very apparent that the Board clearly rejected the
> >direct election approach in Accra. And the ERC in its final report
> >and blue print did not even mention the participatory mechanism
> >which the Board endorsed in their resolution in Accra.
> >
> >With these facts as background, there are two approaches left I think.
> >One is still try to engage "inside" ICANN, meaning accepting the majority
> >decision (of the Board and of the community there) and behave within the
> >framework
> >given and make further effort to realize what we think the best.
> >Another is go "outside" of ICANN and rally, lobby, target ICANN to change using
> >external forces.
> >
> >I am, at least for the timing being, still thinking the first approach
> >has some value. I may be very wrong. But I am not convinced (yet)
> >to take the second approach only. They are not mutually exculsive.
> >
> >  If the first approach completely fails, then  I would either take the
> >second one or I might simply leave.  I don't know.
> >ICANN is not the only game in town for us.
> >
> >It is a difficult situation and difficult judgment. I hope those
> >who stand with the principle of direct representation and participation
> >will not simply deny the other approach who still think direct representation
> >and participation is the goal.
> >
> >The difference to me is not the goal, but how to reach there.
> --
> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
>
> DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
> addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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