[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] What is our Mission?
Hans,
I do indeed understand your case for a focussed mission with regard to ICANN
and the @large. I also respect and appreciate your courtesies, patience and
sincere efforts to draw us all together and keep this organisation moving
forward. Yours is a voice of sanity.
I agree that one interface, and an important one to explore, is to establish
ourselves as (part of) an Icann at Large. I say part of, because Icann does
not intend any one group to emerge with an authoritative voice as "THE at
large".
My problem with this is that Icann's Icann-at-large is their own agenda,
under their own control, and that's the way they intend to keep it. To
become Icann's Icann-at-large is to be subordinated to the structure and
architecture of their own system and organisation. And if we ever become too
powerful, all they have to do is change the rules again (which they have
already demonstrated they are willing and able to do).
So I take a different view:
The @large is huge. The @large is the worldwide community of users. The
@large can and should develop its own, wholly independent voice. The @large
should evolve and develop as a multi-faceted, multiplicity of allied user
groups, concerned with the control of the internet and the defence of its
freedoms.
Yes, part of OUR agenda may involve trying to stay in touch with Icann,
pirouetting with the rogues (in their bizarre dance), and negotiating some
kind of (diminished) role for the @Large within Icann's corrupt processes.
But frankly, I am not hopeful of that achieving tangible ends. Nevertheless
it is worth trying, if only to safeguard the continuing existence and public
profile of an Icann-at-Large.
However, this narrow mission should constitute only ONE side of the polygon.
Icann should only be a subsidiary part of OUR agenda. Our main interfaces
(on the other sides of the Polygon of many sides) should be with the ccTLDs,
with Governments, with the media, with other user groups, with hundreds of
related groups and orgs.
We are far bigger than Icann (which is itself just an ephemeral tool and
invention of the US government). We need to mobilise and construct an
organise and movement, which takes as its point of reference the whole
world, not just a quango of the US government.
We should "talk" to Icann, to DoC, to US representatives - but in the end we
have to create an existence outside of the US agenda, outside US influence,
and independently claim what is ours : the right of millions of ordinary
internet users to have a controlling say in the way the internet is run.
The only chance of this being achieved is if we attract really large numbers
to our cause and take on a size, scale and international character which
outflanks Icann, shows how small and partisan and undemocratic it is, and if
we become a truly significant movement which we can really describe as "THE
@large". (At the moment we are merely a handful of people.)
The achievement of this @Large can only happen through the multifaceted
many-sided polygon approach, in my opinion. We, ourselves, at
Icannatlarge.org, are not THE @Large - of course we are not. We might
half-claim to be the historical IcannatLarge but what does that mean - it is
to be subordinated and rendered powerless.
My argument and belief is that we simply CANNOT attract large numbers (or
indeed claim to the part of THE @Large) if we construct a mission around a
narrow Icann venture. Quite simply, the vast majority of people on this
planet simply have no interest in Icann, its machinations, or the labyrinths
of its organisation. We simply won't get the members. We will simply end up
as a talking shop inside "them".
To create THE @large, we should first acknowledge the very groups and
organisations you have already referred to in your mail to me, Hans. We
should turn it all around. We should adopt Jefsey's brilliant plan, and
create a structure for a huge @Large web presence with a multiplicity of
sides and angles. A network. We should adopt the @large.org name (or a
similar) and build www.france.atlarge.org www.uk.atlarge.org
www.germany.atlarge www.india.atlarge www.freedom.atlarge
www.everythingelse.atlarge.org
We need to "brand" the atlarge as what it truly is : the "atlarge".
The real "atlarge" is not "IcannatLarge" because the real atlarge is
worldwide and reaches far far beyond California. If we limit ourselves to
the Icann interface and side of the polygon, I see as just exhausting our
time, our lives and our energies in an Icann/USG game.
We need to recognise the vision of the "atlarge" : run not by a Panel but by
actual users wherever they are on the globe. Mobilised by a multiplicity of
actual user groups. Broad, far-reaching, and inclusive. Part of this already
exists (as you point out) but there is no atlarge umbrella. Jefsey offers a
construct which can grow and grow - and we NEED to grow and grow.
To be honest, being interested in outcomes, I am ready and happy to propose
that this www.***.atlarge.org web presence is constructed and goes ahead
anyway, while another part of our group loyally and faithfully presses on
with their Icann interface at www.IcannatLarge.org webbase.
To be honest, if Jefsey says, well let's go ahead and create this intuitive
scheme, of course I would say yes. Because it would not prevent your own
vision of an Icann-centric vision.
We should be prepared to explore BOTH avenues.
So Hans, I would like to approach Marc Schneiders about the deployment of
www.atlarge.org in the way Jefsey has set out. It's a free world, and if you
and others DON'T want to use www.atlarge.org then I'd like to try to
persuade Marc to let others use it, to develop this vision.
The AtLarge is far far bigger than Icann. The AtLarge is outside icann. The
web name www.atlarge.org is outside icann too.
By promoting this domain, we perpetuate the name of the AtLarge as a free
and independent entity. We perpetuate the identity and claims of the @Large
: by which I mean - ALL the users and potential user of the world.
We are not playing a US-centric game.
We are talking about the world beyond.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] What is our Mission?
>
> Richard,
>
> I somehow missed your earlier posting, which is a useful articulation of
> one vision of what ICANNatlarge.org could be. I admire the ambition and
> ethical content of that vision.
>
> However, I note that some existing organizations do seem to be attempting
> something like this already. See, for example:
> ISOC: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/
> CPSR: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/volunteers/mission.html
> http://www.cpsr.org/onenet/onenet-draft01.html
> APC: http://www.apc.org/english/about/index.shtml
> (other organizations? In the US, www.EFF.org, www.ACLU.org,
www.CDT.org)
>
> I hold a different vision of ICANNatlarge.org. It fills a unique gap in
> user representation by providing a voice for the user in ICANN.
>
> Today, there is no organization for the ICANN At Large membership. If
> ICANNatlarge.org stakes out this area as its mission (which is exactly
what
> it has done, since its creation, as I understand it), then we make a
unique
> contribution.
>
> Hans
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de