Re: [atlarge-discuss] Supporting Organization

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard,

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Jeff
>
> I agree they say lots of thoughtful and thought-provoking things. I'm
> certainly not trying to dismiss them. Far from it. I believe our
> organisation should try to form a kind of COALITION with this group and many
> others.

  Ok this is one method, yes.  My only problem with such coalitions
is based on personal experience mostly.  They usually break down
over some length of time and at that point or just prior to that point,
thing start to get a little messy.

> The At Large movement is a multiplicity. You cannot really contain
> it. I suppose I'm saying something similar to Danny's SO idea. I'd just
> rather form the coalition clearly outside ICANN and make our assertions from
> there. (I nearly called it "negotiate" - but I don't think you should
> negotiate with people you cannot trust  - as eric often says the same thing
> about people like Hitler - I think you demand from a position of strength.
> What the At Large movement needs is to organise, form coalitions, and become
> so strong that Denise's little effort becomes isolated and marginalised and
> seen for what it is... not a noble movement of millions of people, but a
> tawdry attempt to control from "top down" as a management trick to
> perpetuate a clique in power.)

  It is true that negotiating with and fools is pure folly.  That is
something I had said some 3 years ago now that Eric is just
repeating, but I am glad he is repeating it.  You are rather new
on the scene really, as is Eric, though he predates you.  We
cannot deny the history of ICANN, the Internet, and its
revolution...

>
>
> But you are right : these people at CECUA should be taken seriously. So
> should we. I think it is still the truth that our organisation - the
> evolution of the original "engaged" At Large - are the group most focussed
> on the ICANN power struggle and the identity/interface of the At Large. When
> ICANN effectively kicked us out as a viably represented constituency, we
> went our side. We "ORGANISED" to use Denise's words. We "SELF-CREATED" to
> use her words. And we continue to "self-create".

  True enough and frankly this is quite obvious as well.  Try to
understand
also that Denise and Esthers ALOC/ALAC has not intention of
individual stakeholder/user representation or even a vote to elect
it's representatives.

>
>
> Obviously we must self-create in liaison with similar organisations : united
> we stand, divided we fall.

  Of course...

>
>
> Richard
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Supporting Organization
>
> > Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties,
> >
> >   Perhaps you are correct that CECUA posting to the reform
> > comments black hole ML is strategic stuff but the following isn't:
> > http://www.netspace.net.au/~cecua/discussPaper.htm.  And as you had
> > ask in and earlier post of this thread this also demonstrates what they
> > are doing with DNS as well...
> >
> > Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes I've read it.
> > >
> > > They are really postulating an "ideal" which is fair enough, but doesn't
> > > address the political realities as they are. They are talking in terms
> of
> > > reform of internet governance beyond ICANN, and while they rightly
> affirm
> > > the need for users to be at the heart, they offer no comments on the
> detail
> > > of what's going on in the context of the Blueprint. It's good-hearted
> stuff,
> > > pointing in positive directions, but lacking hooks on what's actually
> > > happening at ICANN, or making any clear demands or positions in relation
> to
> > > the Reform proposals.
> > >
> > > Their views appear non-specific and long-term. That does not invalidate
> > > them - they could be useful allies - but they do not address in any
> reality
> > > the DoC/ICANN axis which is determining the outcome of the Reform
> "coup". A
> > > sample of their submission to the reform process perhaps illustrates
> their
> > > long-term rather non-engaged views:
> > >
> > > "CECUA believes that the question is no longer one of re-defining the
> > > missions of ICANN but one of redefining the scope of the Internet
> governance
> > > functions themselves. In the long term, ICANN's survival is not a real
> > > issue. The real issue is to define the appropriate structures capable of
> > > managing the vital and common functions of the Internet. Some of them
> may be
> > > managed in a similar way as present within a common structure. Others
> will
> > > have to be managed separately because they pose totally different
> problems
> > > and face different issues. There may be a role for ICANN in this
> emerging
> > > model. But, on the other hand it may not have a role."
> > >
> > > There are some good points here, but this is strategic stuff, a long way
> > > from the battlefield.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> > > To: <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:40 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Supporting Organization
> > >
> > > Richard writes:  << If CECUA is indeed as far-reaching as they claim,
> where
> > > are they in the struggle for integrity in the administration of the DNS?
> >>
> > >
> > > The Secretary General of this Organization posted a paper to the ERC
> list
> > > http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00056.html
> > > entitled, "Governance of the Internet: what is ICANNā?Ts legitimacy?"
> > >
> > > The paper itself (in French) is posted at
> > > http://www.iris.sgdg.org/les-iris/lbi/lbi-110402.html
> > >
> > > Clearly, they have an active interest.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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