RE: [atlarge-discuss] FYI

["Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Giampaolo Bonora wrote:

>ISOC Chapters, as other organisations (Andy Mueller Maguhn's CCC come to
>mind, while I not heard nothing from them recently) could be very
>helpful to address problems like voters' identity, and many others
>indeed.

I certainly have no objection if the ISOC takes up our cause and assists us
in our efforts.  But we have to be careful: the Internet Society is, after
all, primarily a professional organization for the Internet industry, and
welcomes as members some of the same people responsible for ICANN decisions
to disenfranchise the At Large. So I would much prefer that, even if the
efforts are supported by other bodies, including the ISOC, that our
outreach, registration and verification processes be managed by our members.

Note that this isn't an indictment of the ISOC.  They have some very good
people in their ranks, some of whom are also in ours!  And I support their
bid for managing the ORG domain.  All I'm saying is that, while in many
cases their agendas parallel ours, in other cases they do not.  And in that
respect we need to be careful to steer our own course, and manage our own
processes.

>I'm cautious about rejecting ICANN, mainly because in my opinion ICANN
>is a placeholder for our present work, which is to build a larger,
>stable users' organization, where different opinions can cohesist.

I wouldn't go *that* far, but I do agree we should be engaging in *any*
conversations that effect our constituency, even if we know that it might
not be fruitful.  If we approach everyone and deal fairly with them -- even
those like ICANN with a history of *not* being fair with us! -- we retain
the moral high ground.

>Meantime, we can think other scenarios without ICANN, but there are some
>different views on fundamental matters: i.e.., Karl considers the
>constituencies' system definitely wrong. Rejecting ICANN, should we
>reject this system in the same time? One option implies the other?

Not necessarily.  The original ICANN model was viable.  It's the way it was
managed and subverted to serve industry insider interests to the exclusion
of the public that make it bad.  The same structure, run transparently, and
with a firm reign on its staff, would work well and serve the interests of
all stakeholders, including users.  But that would require a wholesale
replacement of board members and senior mangers.  And I don't see that
happening.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
Bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!



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