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

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

Ron and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  We cannot have a dual strategy if our mission is to be inclusive
of any and all interested parties/stakeholders/users for a mission
statement.  We CAN however have multiple strategies as to
addressing issues-to-policy that impact, or are perceived to impact our
members.  However a mission statement does not or should not
include language addressing this.  Rather that would be in our bylaws
and our articles of incorporation in some instances.

  So Ron, I think you have the right idea here, just the wrong
area of application.



Ron Sherwood wrote:

> Good afternoon, Richard:
>
>     Can we not have a dual strategy? One that uses the ICANNophiles in our
> midst to work some magic from their perspective while we happily build our
> own globally representative organization to take on all who would usurp this
> amazing resource that we need and use?
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 11:11 AM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] What is our Mission?
>
> > 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

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