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

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Richard:

    Thank you for so eloquently presenting the methodology by which we may
achieve our goals, without forcing the divisive choice of an ICANN
relationship.

    The dual (multiple) strategy approach is not only workable, but has an
inherent "inclusiveness" that should establish a symbiotic relationship
between all @large factions.  I have long believed that the atlarge.org
domain name would provide the ideal umbrella for the "chapter" approach to a
global organization. I also believe that the chapter model is the only model
that is viable in a global environment.

    Have you had the opportunity to discuss with Marc, whether he would
donate the atlarge.org domain name for this purpose?

    Will the organizing Panel consider this approach? Or does the Panel
believe that we must make the decision to work "with ICANN" or  "against
ICANN"?

    If our elected organizing Panel has made the decision that IcannAtLarge
(the group that most of us think we belong to), with its domain name
icannatlarge.org, is the boundary of their mandate, they are likely to stay
embroiled in the ICANN relationship issue. Under this scenario, either
decision will be the wrong decision for many of our members.

    If, on the other hand, the Panel adopts the larger vision that this
organization can include the disparate viewpoints and strategies of a global
membership, then they can work to create a parent structure to coordinate,
guide, facilitate and represent the many @large chapters that will surely
evolve in this fertile space.

Ron


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "Hans Klein"
<hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 4:07 AM
Subject: 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
>
>


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