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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] comments welcome

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.


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