[atlarge-discuss] comments welcome

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Folks,
YJ Park has proposed a conference call among the Panel members. I plan not 
to participate into this conference call and I wish to get the comments of 
the Members on my reasons.

I wish to underline first this is ABSOLUTELY NOT an opposition within the 
panel, and I fully support thetarget of YJ. This is a fundamental decision 
of mine we have discussed with YJ (as you may note she quotes a mail of 
mine about our prooed working organization).


My rationale is based on personal principal of transparency and efficiency, 
on a vision of our action and on a pragmatic approach of our real world.

1/ I have experienced many times the way a conference call is easily 
manipulated (I did it and I was manipulated). It mostly serves to endorse 
predecided positions. You cannot make people who do not know each other, 
who speak different languages, with different ages, training, visions to 
understand, analyse and decide what they cannot understand, analyse and 
decide by mail in ten days. I have experienced the way Marilyn Cade and 
Philip Sheppard use CCs, and I think it is one of the main manipulation 
tool of ICANN.

This is why I was a candidate to the BoD to stop that practice and to "go 
Estonian", ie to develop an email based decision making system transparent 
to all and benefitting from everyones inputs (like th Gov of Estonia does 
for the Cabinet Minister meetings). Why would I support here a principle I 
fought there?

We all know the mechanic: the one who has to contribute needs time, cannot 
be understood one shot and therefore is made to stop permitting the others 
to adopt what was prepared. YJ suffered this enough at the NC. This is the 
main reason of the inability of the NC to produce anything as Danny, 
Joanna, Eric and many here shown it at the WG-Review chaired by YJ.

Conference Calls are centralized network oriented. They are efficient in a 
hierachy or a two people meeting (two hierarchies) with their staff 
(discussing a contract). I tend to think that we can only be efficient in 
an Internet world in using appropriate Internet tools.

I therefore proposed Vittorio - who has PHP skills - to develop a voting 
panel where each question could be displayed, discussed and where panelists 
would have a place to vote. In public. To document this kind of approach I 
set-up a wiki for our organization you will find at http://icannatlarge.org


2/ This kind of Conference Call and agenda (that YJ made pretty 
well)  looks to me too much as an NC annouced agenda not to get see that it 
corresponds to this centralized organization I do not approve. That I 
oppose in the case of the Internet crowd support.

I created france@large one year and half ago. I have a mailing list there. 
And I know how tough it is to try to motivate people on governance matters. 
The idea of the meetup came: we are the leading city and may be the first 
meet-up next week.  This is a unique case. This is also a unique experience 
and I try to build on it.

We have 1000 members. IMHO anything we do which centralizes, looks top 
down, etc. we lose them. The only solution I think - but I may be wrong - 
to keep our momentum and develop is neither to be bottom up or top down, 
itis to be TOGETHER. When some one has an idea, a project like Joey, let 
him go ahead. The panel and any other structutre is not to be a dominance, 
but a catalyst for "concertance". In my vision WGs have no one in charge 
from the Panel: we are liaisons from the panel, with the role to keep the 
WG informed and they have a Chair or a Spokeman liaising with thet Panel 
and the rest of the world, the way they want.

It happens that I chair france@large, OK. Believe me should I not be in the 
panel, I would never have accepted that a panelist would come and interfere 
with it. I expect it is the same for WGs. I have pushed for the WG-ccTLD 
and the WG-Networksystems. All I want is to make sure we do not forget 
these two matters which are vital to us, and where we are vital to our 
partners. People will come from the ccTLD world, from the IETF, from the 
W3C, etc.. with much more competences than me. My role (and o therother 
panlists) is not to lead them, nor to chair them. Our role is to listen to 
them and to tell them what we know, what we experienced as a member of the 
common panel. To help with a "concertance catalysis" service.

This is why I think the only real links we have is a common name and all 
what it represents. A TLD: we all are the @large, ie users interested in 
sharing into the governance, from all the places of the world, from all the 
possible concerns. In alt(sic)root I created ".atlarge" for us.

We are @large from France, UK, India, USA, NZ etc. we are members of the 
ICANN, ccTLD, incorporation WGs, in English this is put into the left to 
right DNS order: france@large, India@large etc.. icann@large, inc@atlarge, 
cctlds@large etc people.

Should WG-ICANN have a site, their site will be http://icannatlarge.com, 
http://icann.atlarge.org http://icannat-large.ws http://icannpopulacion.ar 
etc... whatever people would feel confortable with, with no need for anyone 
to vote, only for online index.htm files to reroute or httpd.conf aliases - 
has anyone problems with 100 names for their site?

IMHO we are the people of the world and we are interested in better nets: 
internet, wifi, tv, radio, enum, etc.

IMHO we want management methods adapted to that target. This is certainly 
new challenge. We do not want old solutions inherited from other 
technologies or dominances, however good they look. I fully agree it calls 
for imagination and new solutions. But all our action is about fostering 
innovation others willbe able to use.


3/ prgamatic coherence. If we are serious about gathering 100.000 people we 
can only do it adopting from the very begining a culture able to match this 
challenge. Since everyone knows about the US History: did they elected 
Franklin King to be able to dialog with Louis XVI and get a treaty, arms 
and troops. Did they made Washington a King to fight the Royal Infantry? 
They could hav though thy would adapt and become democrats afterward? One 
has to realize that democracy was very very new to them. Actually they 
innovated it, and many people copied.

If we want to build up a coherent concertance for the internet systems we 
have to be innovative the same. There is no world government, this is a 
very old idea. There is no world parliament, this is an old idea ... two 
ideas which make the problems of ICANN. There is a world gouvernance of the 
nets (I use the French word which means here "net keeping"), there is a 
needed world concerted service of the users.

Governements represent the people by power, the parliament represent them 
by vote, we have to innovate into the representing by dedication and 
service: this is the @large. This is the only aceptable response to our 
lack of Governmental force and of elected represenation. The only reason 
why we are legitimate and why neither Joe nor Esther with old shemes in mnd 
could fit the job.


If we try another way, as many tried before, we will fail.

Your comments welcome.
jfc

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