Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Richard wrote:

> Right now - and notwithstanding Elisabeth P's misgivings - I believe we
cannot justify
> delaying a ballot on our name - so we can brand ourselves, create
identity, and start
> reaching our effectively.

    I have lived my life on the belief that a decision should only be made
when it is necessary, and then to make it fearlessly, for if the wrong
decision is made...  we can always make another decision.

    That having been said, and in the light of the fact that a few more days
will not make the slightest difference to the current status of our
organization, I am inclined to take advantage of Elisabeth's generous offer
to help us with a poll that would prevent the inevitably acrimonious, in-box
fodder that will result from a mailing-list ballot.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu.org>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority


> We DO need to wait to see if DoC attach any significant conditions to the
> renewal, but it does on the face of it seem like a fait accompli - it was
> always the most likely outcome : USG sees ICANN as the best way of
retaining
> control of the DNS, and ICANN and DoC sort of need each other - it's
mutual.
>
> The implications are, as Vittorio indicates, that ALAC will proceed
(highly
> controlled and only granted extended influence if the ICANN Board feels
sure
> it cannot subvert their powerbase). The whole ALAC initiative was a
> wonderful way of "letting DoC off the hook" by projecting the image which
> both ICANN and DoC could sell, that they were committed to user
> participation.
>
> The whole thing is about top-down control.
>
> In the longer term, as Danny Younger suggests, the only alternative seems
to
> be claims by governments in the international community that they should
be
> involved to a greater extent. At present GAC has been the ALAC-style
"front"
> for USG and ICANN to claim that international governments are involved. In
> the future, and with the likely growing impact of ccTLDs, not to mention
> pressures for alternative roots, that may not wash.
>
> So I see two strategies:
>
> 1. To participate within the ALAC processes, from a strongly independent
> position - as Vittorio seems to have been suggesting. The blunt reality of
> this is that we are on a hiding to nothing in the short term... everything
> will be orchestrated on ICANN's terms and conditions, because the ALAC
will
> be an ICANN structure which they can use and develop however they want.
> Indeed they can choose to amend or renege on their promises for it, as
they
> have done in the past in relation to the AtLarge movement. There are a few
> small benefits which may justify participation: it affords a presence and
a
> (very small) influence for the AtLarge within the ICANN structure; and in
> the event of further pressure in the future for user representation, then
> the AtLarge community will be in place to fill that role. The big
> disadvantage is that the very act of participation will appear to add
> legitimacy to ICANN's reforms and its image of involving users.
>
> 2. The second strategy (which may take place at the same time) is the
> constructive development of a network of user communities - in which,
> frankly, icannatlarge.com will only be one constituent. This network of
> internet user communities should be developed way outside ICANN, and
should
> be wide-ranging... MUCH, much more wide-ranging than the narrow
ICANN-based
> mission some people desire for icannatlarge... A multi-faceted network of
> user communities, dealing with all issues to do with Internet use,
freedom,
> access etc etc (but separate communities may focus on specific issues)....
> such a network could develop an identity of its own and come to stand for
> internet users. I hoped that this was the direction that icannatlarge.com
> would take, but I understand why many people wanted it to stay "narrow" in
> its mission. The trouble with the "narrow" mission, however, (as we have
> seen) is that the governance of the DNS is just NOT an issue which excites
> many people as long as their computers work - and ICANN/DoC have largely
got
> their way by default because the public and the media just aren't really
> interested. Therefore, my personal inclination is to move towards the
> "long-game" (since, frankly, I think we are defeated in the short term,
> unless DoC produces surprise conditions). I look towards a multiplicity of
> Internet User groups, that may be drawn together under some kind of
> umbrella - ... an alternative ALAC outside ICANN if you like, but
addressing
> many many more issues (of which ICANN is just one)
>
> As things stand we have 20? 30? 40? people engaged in our organisation,
many
> of them bemused and unsure what we stand for. My assessment at this time,
is
> that there just isn't the interest in who runs ICANN or the control of the
> DNS. Or else, we have so far not started to communicate, or educate.
>
> I think there is a strong case for jettisoning the
> one-organisation-overseen-by-panel approach and instead simply celebrating
> our diversity and setting up multiple communities, who can become enclaves
> which come together for convocation from time to time.
>
> Even on the Outreach issue, where I have been very vocal, I am beginning
to
> think that I might be wiser simply to try to build up a UK community right
> where I am, with groups I know and understand - rather than trying to
> orchestrate a global icannatlarge.com
>
> I'm undecided about that, but my confidence in the "central" organisation
> has been shaken by the small number of people who post messages and engage
> (or indeed endorse any candidate). I've also been vastly put off by some
of
> the acrimony intruding in my inbox which seems to negate the values I
> thought we were pursuing.
>
> This is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can still proceed
> step by step. But as Judyth has expressed, I'm only prepared to expend
> energy (more importantly, sacrifice time I owe to my wife and children) if
> the project is manifestly going somewhere. Otherwise, I would choose to
try
> to build community elsewhere (though to similar ends).
>
> Right now - and notwithstanding Elisabeth P's misgivings - I believe we
> cannot justify delaying a ballot on our name - so we can brand ourselves,
> create identity, and start reaching our effectively.
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] U.S. Will Renew ICANN's Authority
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:53:36 EDT, you wrote:
>
> >The U.S. government will renew a California nonprofit's authority to
manage
> >the Internet's global addressing system, a top Commerce Department
official
> >said today.
>
> Oh well - looks like "plan A" will be a complete failure. Now, would
anyone
> consider working a little more strictly with the present ICANN? This
doesn't
> mean that we have to stop our efforts - for example, this press release
> might simply be a "ballon d'essai" to see how hard reactions are, so we
> should definitely react to it with some complaining letter to Ms.
Victory -
> but this shows even more that the idea of the USG stepping in to grant
more
> democracy in ICANN is likely to be proven false, as I have been saying for
> the last two months.
>
> So, we do have to keep with our plans, but we cannot refuse the fact that
> ICANN (unless some very unlikely sudden changes) will still be keeping the
> strings of the DNS at least for the next year, and possibly forever.
>
> (Ah - on icannwatch someone said that if the USG won't do it, then we
should
> ask the ITU. Don't even think at it... the ITU is even more business- and

> government-controlled than the present ICANN.)
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>


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