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

[atlarge-discuss] comments welcome

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.

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