RE: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC archives?

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

Danny Younger wrote:

>I, for one, have never bought into the "go forth and multiply" sales pitch
>put forward by the ICANN Board.

Nor do I.  Nor have we.  If you'll remember, ICANN didn't start talking all
that crap until we had already begun self-organizing, and in my opinion it
was started up to deflect interest away from our effort.  As you know, our
group grew out of a core of committed people who had been keeping the idea
of an At Large alive through conversations in the old ALSC forum.  For
several years post-election that forum and the people in it *was* the At
Large, to the extent that there was one.  This fact gives this group greater
moral authority than perhaps any other group purporting to represent the At
Large (certianly far more than the ALOC!), and ICANN well knows this.  I
consider the ALOC as an activity specifically chartered to dilute our
self-organizing efforts, after it was clear that Esther had not even
marginal control over us!

>There are already plenty of user organizations out there and I am proud to
>already belong to one of them -- the Internet Society (ISOC), NY chapter.

ISOC is not a user organization.  It is primarily a trade organization for
the Internet industry.  This is not necessarily a bad thing: every industry
is usualy better for having one.  However the same faces that have steered
ICANN to the brink of dissolution are in power within the ISOC as well, so I
doubt we will see any user-friendly ideas from that group!  Conversely, ours
is a forum for users, not Internet professionals.  A very different beast,
to serve a constituency that has been ignored and/or ill served in all other
venues.

>Building a new organization, in my opinion, was just a well-orchestrated
>diversion planned by Esther Dyson . . .

Well, if so her plan back-fired on her, because we're still focused and
growing! I don't think Esther and Denise would have jumped so quickly to
abandon us and build the ALOC otherwise.

>I will not join a group that has so little regard for its own
>members that it fails to act aggressively in their best interest.

At Bucharest we *had* no officials with the bona fides to speak for us
officially, and won't until after our elections.  Despite that, I seem to
remember lots of heated rhetoric made that venue by some of our members, and
quoted here and elsewhere.

> . . . decisions on ICANN will be made prior to the expiration of its
current MoU in September.

We know that.  Thus the rush to empanel real officers quickly.  Futher many
of us who are US citizens have been doing as you say, tweaking our
Congresscritter over the At Large disenfranchisement, the .ORG fiasco and
other current and past abuses on ICANN's part.  So we are not "doing
nothing" as you suggest.  As soon as we're official, I for one fully intend
to push for the organization to release a strongly-worded statement
condemning ICANN and calling for rebid of the contract.  Perhaps members of
the press lurking here would volunteer to publicize that effort.  But in
private conversations with several journalists, they have communicated their
reluctance to do so until we *are* officially constituted.  So that remains
my (and fortunately our!) highest priority.

Once again Danny, I point out that, although your opinions are often
contrary to mine, I value them and would like to see you join our ranks.  We
need active, committed members, regardless of their leanings.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 1:09 AM
To: Bruce@barelyadequate.info; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC archives?


Dear Bruce,


I have never been enamoured with the perceived need for an organizational
response as opposed to individual initiatives.  I have seen ACM, PFIR, CDT,
CPSR, and others come out with "statements" that routinely are disregarded
by
the Board.  There is no "magic" in position papers put forward by various
groups -- there is only the power of ideas that can as easily be articulated
by individuals as by groups.

While members of this group choose to spend their time organizing, I choose
to spend my time fighting by writing directly to Vint Cerf and Alejandro
Pisanty (whenever I believe they might be amenable to persuasion), and to
Nancy Victory and Karen Rose (when it becomes clear that ICANN is just not
listening).

If this group was prepared to launch a sustained fight at the highest levels
with a commitment to engage the US Congress and the Department of Commerce
in
the attempt to curb ICANN abuses, then I might be tempted to join as a
member.  I view those groups as the only entities that can currently
exercise
any possible control over this Board-run-amok.  But as I have seen no
indication that members within this body are prepared to participate in any
such campaign to protect their own rights, I will not join your effort at
this time.

I respect what you are doing... I simply don't share your vision, your
strategies or tactics.  You have a fine slate of candidates that can lead
this group forward with more than enough North Americans already standing
for
election... you really don't need still one more.  Eventually this group
might manage to do something (if you don't get bogged down in endless
Charter
discussions), but I can't wait for you to get your act together as decisions
on ICANN will be made prior to the expiration of its current MoU in
September.

Best wishes,
Danny


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