Re: [atlarge-discuss] What is our Mission?

[eric@hi-tek.com]

My good friend.
You have been a great servant of our collective group.
And your words here are worth healthy debate.

Let us not focus on our collective no's but our collective yes's.
ICANN is an inclusive not an exclusive.  They are a fine group when all is put
aside. (my internet works very well)
Our mission statement is easy and not a controlling document and not one that
cannot be changed.
One of my great countries in which I am privileged to do work in just adjusted
their constitution.
We are very close to accomplishing something very good here.
No division.
Unity
e


Richard Henderson wrote:

> I certainly recognise that different people have different expectations of
> this organisation. For my part, I have little interest in an organisation
> which limits its mission to reforming ICANN. Indeed, I am disappointed that
> we have retained the name ICANN in our organisation name, because it seems
> to indicate that this ICANN-related mission is favoured by many.
>
> I do not favour a mission primarily set within the context of ICANN and its
> labyrinthine politics (a) because the ICANN Board will make up the rules as
> they go along to exclude user groups like ours from exercising real power
> (b) because it gives the impression that we are legitimising ICANN (c)
> because ICANN's agenda (and that of the US govt) is wholly peripheral to the
> rest of the world.
>
> As Jefsey and Jim have indicated, in the end the world will move on, and we
> should set our own agenda, wholly detached from ICANN and its discredited
> executives/board : our agenda, as an organisation representing the world of
> internet users far beyond the US, should be to assert the rights of ordinary
> users to determine the way the internet is managed and operated. This is FAR
> bigger than ICANN or the US, and our agenda should be broad and
> wide-ranging. ICANN is not a part of 95% of what we should be about. ICANN
> is peripheral (and probably ephemeral).
>
> If we are to attract people in large numbers (and to be truly representative
> of millions of people) then we have to address the issues that largely
> concern those people. ICANN - for most people - is NOT one of those issues.
> ICANN is something we can introduce people to and educate them about, but
> ICANN is NOT what will make people want to join us.
>
> People will join us - and we will become a movement - if we have the courage
> to organise along a whole range of issues including Internet freedom,
> censorship, the ccTLD world far beyond icann, the right to very cheap or
> free domains, the dismantling of the Trademark hegemony, the regulation of
> rogue registrars, and indeed countless issues that groups of people in a
> burgeoning organisation would CHOOSE to embrace and address.
>
> Using Jefsey's intuitive addressing system:  ... freedom.atlarge.org ...
> censors.atlarge.org ... ccTLD.atlarge.org ... freedomains.atlarge.org ...
> trademarks.atlarge.org ... registrars.atlarge.org ... the organisation can
> draw in a wide coalition of interest groups.
>
> The mistake, in my opinion, is for a few obscure individuals (however
> sincere) to try to take on ICANN and the US government at a game where all
> the rules are made up by the opposition. The battle itself will seem complex
> and marginal to most people's lives, and most people will simply not have
> the time for it.
>
> This is not to decry the brave struggle in its own right. It is noble and
> founded on principle. But I do not believe in expending energy, time and
> life on a project unless that project has the power and means to prevail. I
> don't think it does. I don't personally think the DoC pays a blind bit of
> notice to our voice. They have their own, their separate agenda - which at
> the present time is linked to ICANN's usefulness to them.
>
> As a larger, broader organisation we can begin to "outflank" icann and its
> petty dictators - we can become something they never can - we can assume a
> moral authority they can never acquire - we can represent the WHOLE world
> and become a voice that will be heard, which may one day confront the US
> government and the way it tries to keep control of the internet.
>
> I am NOT anti-American : to me the ordinary family people of America are
> part of the solution, part of the decency of the world. But I believe that
> we should be building a broad coalition which says "NO" to the forces of
> globalisation, "NO" to insidious corporate corruption, "NO" to the claims of
> the US/ICANN to control DNS policy, "NO" to those governments across the
> world which attempt to censor and control the internet, "NO" to those on the
> supply side of the industry who try to determine and control this amazing
> project - the Internet - for their own benefit but at the expense of broader
> freedoms.
>
> If our organisation - whose name I disdain with disgust - is prepared for a
> real battle and wants to mobilise in a way which matters to millions...
> then I can see the point of it.
>
> At present we are just a marginal clique interfacing with a marginal
> committee within ICANN, a committee which is set up by ICANN's board
> specifically to "soak up" dissent and smother it. We are fighting a struggle
> on THEIR terms, by trying to respond to THEIR processes, and its a struggle
> about power - which they have and we don't.
>
> The biggest mistake is to try to be "reasonable" with ICANN.
>
> That is like Neville Chamberlain trying to be "reasonable" with Hitler.
>
> ICANN has already made up its mind. ICANN already has its agenda. It sees us
> as a minor (and almost irrelevant) inconvenience to be marginalised,
> occupied, kept busy, promised obscure sweeteners, and controlled.
>
> In fact we are NOT irrelevant. If one or two of us are at Shanghai, the
> Board will portray us as marginal and irrelevant, but what we actually are
> is: a "Bridgehead". But ICANN will simply claim we are not representative.
> It is the ICANN Board, in fact, which is not representative.
>
> ICANN is CORRUPT.
>
> We should not appease them. We should not try to construct diplomatic
> relations with a rogue regime. We should outflank them. We should build up a
> broad coalition and create a movement which will render them tiny and
> insignificant. We should believe this is possible. We should be talking with
> a wide range of organisations.
>
> ICANN is just a 'phenomenon' of far wider historical and economic tides. It
> is allowed to exist because it is of use to powerful vested interests.
>
> A tiny group of dissidents may try to alter ICANN but it can't turn the
> flood-tide of corporate economic imperialism. The people in power will
> simply not allow the interference of 1000 people to prevail. (ARE we
> actually 1000 people?)
>
> Our struggle is not against ICANN at all. It is against vested interests who
> are controlling the game. Our only recourse, therefore is the brilliance and
> imagination... the lateral thinking.... the mobilisation ... of philosophers
> like James Khan ... of terrorist cells like Joey Borda ... of propagandists
> like Judyth Mermelstein... people prepared to think what the 'establishment'
> claims is the unthinkable.
>
> We have to do the unpredictable things. We have to try the things that
> people think are too stupid to try. And our strength, using in part the
> Internet, is our ability to network and mobilise.
>
> In conclusion, I believe - yes - different people expect different things of
> our organisation. Some people want us to stay tight, narrow and specific, so
> we can do a few things well. I respect the logic of that although I do not
> agree with the strategy. Other people believe the time is right for ordinary
> human beings around the globe to mobilise around a coalition of shared
> values and varied concerns. To commence a more tidal movement. To challenge
> the economic powers that make ICANN and similar phenomena possible.
>
> ICANN is a bizarre "Alice in Wonderland" creation. It is an Emperor with no
> clothes. Its main players are discredited, even in the eyes of the US
> government... they are laughable figures... but they are still useful in
> their place, and so powerful people retain them. Nobody respects them - not
> even their DoC backers.
>
> I've acquired The Human Race .com
>
> One use of this name could be to provide an umbrella for hundreds or
> thousands of organisations which stand up for ordinary people and their
> ordinary needs.
>
> I'd like to construct a site about ordinary people's lives, nation by
> nation, about mothers in each land, nurses in each land, farmers in each
> land, teachers in each land, shopkeepers in each land, grandparents in each
> land, children in each land, gay people in each land, artists in each land
> etc etc - their hopes and dreams and aspirations - and their ordinary (or
> extraordinary) lives. I'd like to construct a site which provides safe haven
> and an umbrella for a network of communities and organisations, who say:
>
> "WE are the people of the WORLD" - we, and those not yet enfranchised or
> online
>
> WE, the people, have a voice - and we challenge and question:
>
> the despoilation of our planet
> the economic imperialism and the exploitation of the poor
> the censorship of peoples
> the corporate frauds and the "Mickey Mouse"-isation of ancient cultures
> the world view of the patriarchs (who are becoming oligarchs)
>
> "WE are the people of the WORLD" - the Internet is OURS
>
> WE, the people, have a voice - and we challenge and we question and we
> demand.
>
> Millions of people do not have time to challenge ICANN, because they do not
> have enough food to feed their children. Their struggle, our struggle,
> embraces broader issues. ICANN can be challenged from a broader confederacy,
> ICANN can be challenged when people believe we also care about their
> children, dying from deficiency-related diseases, dying from lack of
> immunity, dying from lack of food.
>
> The question is: how do we become an organisation of 100s of thousands or
> millions?
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
> To: <espresso@e-scape.net>; Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain
> Name: icannatlarge.org
>
> > Good morning, Joop:
> >
> >     Your analysis of the dichotomy that we are facing is interesting and
> > probably quite accurate.  There are certainly two separate camps here.
> >
> >     Your suggestion that we develop two mission statements and then vote
> for
> > the most popular, has the benefit of democracy but also suffers from the
> > biggest problem with democracy...  alienation of the losing side.
> >
> >     Isn't it possible for us to have two (or three) strings to our bow?
> > What if we used the democratic vote to determine what our umbrella policy
> > would be, but had a team of ICANN reformists who worked from within or
> > alongside ICANN, and the rest of the organization working from without (or
> > as Jim Flemming would have it, by-pass ICANN completely)?  Surely there is
> > nothing wrong with having two action plans, coordinated to achieve our
> > goals.
> >
> > Regards, Ron
> >
> >
> > Joop wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know if the following proposal will deserve anyone's gratitude,
> but
> > here is a way forward to consider:
> >
> > >We clearly have members who have joined us to continue the battle for
> > representation in ICANN. This group ought to come up with a mission
> > statement that sums up their mission and purpose of organizing, not
> > excluding the possibility of being a pressure group outside ICANN.
> >
> > >(there are also pure ICANN supporters among our members, such as Esther
> > Dyson and Mike Roberts.
> > I do not know if they are on this list--please Thomas, once
> > again,  consider making the list of participants here public.)
> >
> > >Then we have members who dream of the wider mission, the farther future
> and
> > who abhor even the association with a corrupt ICANN. This group too, ought
> > to have a champion who will draft a satisfactory mission statement for
> such
> > an option. (Richard?)
> >
> > >The two alternative mission statements can be developed here on the open
> > list or in the Forum (first drafts are already there) and when there are
> no
> > more amendments  *both* get submitted to the membership for a binding
> vote,
> > together with a summary of the arguments for each.
> >
> > >In order to give the organizing efforts a chance, the losing minority
> > commits not to fight a re-litigation of the "battle of Mission Statement"
> > before there are at least 2500 members and is in return respected by the
> > majority as a loyal 'opposition".  Respected for its contributions and
> help.
> >
> > >If that would not be acceptable for the potential minority and the two
> > wings of our membership would prefer to waste their energy on internal
> > fights for control of icannatlarge.org, it is better to separate early and
> > just form a loose "alliance of  common purpose".
> >
> > >That way no energies will be lost in wrestling with the wrong enemies.
> >
> > >Of course you may see protests from those who prefer to see internal
> fights
> > prolonged.
> >
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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