RE: [atlarge-discuss] List/website/connectivity

[Norbert Klein <nhklein@gmx.net>]

> It seems to me that the last thing the planet needs is yet another
>  organization to represent the interests of the technically-inclined and
> the  affluent, which simply dismisses the needs of the rest on the
> grounds that some day some of them may have what we have now.
> Isn't that part of what we object to in ICANN's behaviour?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Judyth
> (looking forward to various efforts to represent the needs
> of all to the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society,
> and rather surprised that this group doesn't seem to care)

Judyth,

your last remark clarifies - for me - further the unresolved "mission
statement" of this group here.

I do care for the efforts to represent the needs of all to the 2003 World
Summit on the Information Society, but I think there are other venues where
this is the central concern. It should also be a concern here, but I think the
central concern here is ICANN - and the fact that ICANN changed its original
course, a very specific (and narrow) track. In some of the ICANN-critical
discussions the "mission creep" has been denounced, that ICANN took on more and
more functions (example: in trade mark protection) which were not the original
tasks of ICANN.

My concern is still that this group, which grew out of the ICANN At-Large
vote for directors on the ICANN board (a procedure which was later curtailed,
and then abandoned), should focus on its historical origin and stick with this
task which grew out of it: to get the at-large membership organized and
regain our original right to participate how the ICANN board sets policy.

There are many concerns for which there are many different venues. 

As I have indicated before, I am very much concerned with the Digital Divide
(as we very often have the experience of "falling through the net" as the
original US government study on the Digital Divide in the US said). But to
overcome the Digital Divide is not on the aganda of ICANN. Whenever ICANN is,
however, violating Digital Divide problems (like when they accepted only Web
users to vote for the first round of elected directors), I was campaigning
against this restrictive practice.

And I tried to do the same - in vain - when it was necessary to be a Web
user to become a member of this ICANNatlarge group. But even while these
problems for e-mail-only users continue even in this group, I still would be most
happy to see ICANNatlarge focusing on the reform of ICANN. 

And other issues have to be tackled in other places. Many of the issues are
interrelated, yes, but they are very complex, and if we are not focused
enough, we may also not be able to get a firmer hold on some of them.

Norbert




-- 
Norbert Klein
Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh


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