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

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



At 04:47 +0200 2002/10/09, Norbert Klein wrote:
>> (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.

That is certainly a legitimate position to take, in line with what I call the "narrowly-defined" mission. 

I am obviously more inclined to take on a "broadly-defined" mission. For one thing, I simply don't believe that a majority of Internet users around the world, or even a statistically-significant minority of them, are willing to focus their energies on ICANN's Byzantine thought-processes when there are so many other, more pressing concerns. 

I also don't believe, unfortunately, that our group can reverse the neoconservative ideology which governs the United States and therefore is applied by the U.S. Department of Commerce to its "Memorandums of Understanding" with ICANN, even though the new one pays some lip service to recognizing input from Internet users as well as the major players in the industry. 

We have been talking about a massive effort to mobilize Internet users around the world so as to give them a democratic voice in the decisions that affect them. To give them that voice but restrict its expression to begging ICANN to reinstate the at-large body it never wanted in the first place, and laboured so hard to gut and then eliminate, strikes me as terribly short-sighted. What will change ICANN, if it can be changed by us at all, is the cumulative pressure exerted by national governments and international bodies on the U.S. Government and its Department of Commerce to recognize that the Internet is not purely a matter of providing business opportunities for the IT industry and the registrars.

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

That's undoubtedly true, and I'm participating in several of them. But like most Internet users, my time and energy are not unlimited. If this group were able to serve as an umbrella-group for all the various efforts to maintain the Internet open to all, that would be magnificent. If not, then at least I'd like to see it make representations to all of the relevant bodies and Summits and such which are in the process of determining what the future, Internet-based "Information Society" will be like to live in.

>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. 

I sympathize with your access problem. For my first ventures into Internet use, I also had e-mail-only access ... but found there were ways around the problem. For example, one *can* get Web pages by e-mail. I don't have my old address collection on this machine but would suggest that if you can get onto the Web at least briefly, you can find (using a search for "Bob Rankin" and "Tour Bus" at Google.com, for example) a very useful explanation of how this can be done.

>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.

You may be right. It remains to be seen what the whole membership really wants to do. It is not for either of us to decide on a mission ... but if we can't agree on one fairly soon, I and some of the other members are likely to move to those other venues in the hope of actually achieving something during the coming year.

Regards,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



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