[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Judyth's comments on scale and legitimacy
Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties,
Richard Henderson wrote:
> I agree with a lot of this, Judyth
> (comments below)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >we hundred-or-so on this list can hardly constitute ourselves the At Large
> electorate or claim to legitimately represent them.
> This is exactly my argument for making Outreach a first priority. Not all
> people are interested in the fine detail of ICANN politics (in fact, hardly
> anyone is)
I would disagree that "Hardly anyone" is interested in the details.
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Most relatively intelligent
people to include stakeholders/users know this all too well...
> - but people ARE interested in the Internet, see it as "theirs"
> and as a world resource of which they are stakeholders. So I take the view
> that we should construct a broad-based movement, selling the idea that "It's
> YOUR Internet" which tries to convey the idea of people in every community
> and every region and every country joining up for a kind of "people's
> movement" of the Internet.
Yes. And this is, has been and will continue to be done on many fronts.
In fact Vint Cerf wrote a piece about this some years ago titled,
"The internet is for everyone"... SO you may be a bit behind the
curve on this idea here Richard, but you have it right at least... >:)
> A movement which sets itself apart from big
> business. A movement that embraces the really high ideals for a better
> world. And - within that broad based movement which could attract FAR more
> members - you can include the issue of "Who runs the Internet?" This way, we
> first attract hundreds of thousands of members (to make ourselves far more
> representative) and then we use that added authority to demand
> representation for users at the heart of ICANN (unless, as you say, ICANN is
> cut back to a powerless narrow technical mandate). I have pledged to work
> for a minimum membership of 100,000 in the next year. I would prefer it if
> we aimed for a million.
Well said and good point. >;)
> We should aim to affiliate with other already-established organisations:
> teacher unions, universities, student unions, religious groups, local sports
> clubs... almost antwhere where there is an already-established group of
> people... and we should "sell" the idea of defending the Internet and
> creating this great democratic online force for good. Equally, we should
> attract individuals too. We should organise locally and regionally, and we
> should work together to create marketing messages which LOTS of people can
> buy into. We should use local and personal contacts. We should even engender
> friendly rivalry between one country and another to see who can attract %
> growth in numbers. We should prioritise the growth and creation of this
> really significant user-base.
Again good points and right attitude. This is in a nutshell what INEGroup
is and has been doing for some time now... ICANNATLARGE.COM
members should also get on board with this attitude as well... Well done
> >I would also like to see the replacement of the "at-large" terminology
> since it has evidently been co-opted for other purposes. >Perhaps what is
> really needed is a concerted effort to invite Internet users to form their
> own local chapters which could elect >representatives to an "Internet House
> of Commons"
> I agree that the term "At Large" has little or no meaning to the general
> public and should be replaced by a name/concept that millions of ordinary
> people can understand. There is, though, a case for retaining the "At Large"
> term as a subsidiary name so that we can continue to be seen within ICANN
> participants as an At Large organisation : indeed, if this planned growth
> took place, as THE primary At Large organisation in the public and media
Yes perception is 90% of reality. This is why presently the ICANN
BoD and staff are so worried about Karl's victory in court and their
public image. They should be.
> As to the concept of an Internet House of Commons, although we are talking
> British terminology, I think its fairly well understood throughout much of
> the world. I've reserved www.internetparliament.com and
> www.theinternetparliament.com and www.theinternetparliament.org for an
> initiative along these lines, but are - if you like - my fallback if
> IcannAtLarge.com gets captured or doesn't embrace the scale of movement I
> believe in. Put simply, the case for democratic representation of ordinary
> users over the administration of the Internet is very strong indeed. The
> Internet belongs now to the world - to hundreds of millions of users (and
> non-users too). It is their Internet and they have the primary right to
> determine how and by whom it is run, developed, and administered. Put
> simply, we need massive membership, so ICANN can no longer marginalise us,
> and so the media and governments recognise us and really take interest.
> We need to go round the back of ICANN's defences. Rather than compromise our
> principles to participate in an ALAC which is ICANN's mechanism for
> reversing and cancelling out democratic user representation, we should
> simply follow our own agenda, regardless of ICANN, and become so large and
> significantly representative that they are politically pressured to take us
> into account. We have to make ICANN fear our authority. It is largescale
> membership that they will really fear, if it is combined with intelligent
> interfaces with the media and US Govt and EU etc.
> I accept that others in this organisation want a slimmed down ICANN and a
> slim small membership of cognoscenti who understand the ins and out of ICANN
> and the DNS.
> However, I don't personally see that strategy ever working with ICANN. They
> will just create layer upon layer of reasonable discourse and "consultation"
> to protect their powerbase and keep real elected user participation at arms
> Conversely, I think we stand at a time and an opportunity which is RIGHT for
> the development of a worldwide movement (providing we have enough
> commonsense to understand that very few people are interested in ICANN
> itself, but millions feel they deserve a stake in an Internet that has truly
> come to belong to everyone).
> Thanks for your comments, Judyth.
> Richard Henderson
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org