I share your concerns... while I think a teleconference can be useful for Q/A and verbal reporting/accountability, the core debate and decisionmaking should happen on the mailing list. IMHO, -s On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 14:21, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part