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

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

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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 am not so sure that Han's voice is one of sanity.  I am sure that Hans
has and still does play both sides of the fence, so to speek.  Hence,
I am not sure as to what you refrence here Richard, nor as to where
Hans really stands from one time frame to the next.

>
>
> 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".

  I think that your evaluation here is and accurate one.  I of course
has been made several times before in the past.

>
>
> 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.

  This was obvious two years ago...  S nothing new or unexpected here...

> 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).

  Good restatement of another point that has been made by a number of active
Paticipants/Stakeholders/users on a number of occasions sense '99...


>
>
> 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.

  Also agreed here...  This is essentially what IENGroup has been
dedicated to and building upon for some time now...

>
>
> 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.

  Also this too is a good point worth forwarding...

>
>
> 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.

  ICANN has decided recently in it's reform effort to create a ccNSO.
This may hamper our efforts in working well with the ccTLD community.

>
>
> 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.

 Indeed so yes.  But one step at a time...

>
>
> 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.

  We as stakeholders/users have a say now in how the internet is run
or managed.  We don't need to influence ICANN to see th that.  And
as stakeholders/users, we never have...  It is just that many if not most
stakeholders/users are not aware of the actual power they have if collectively
they choose to actively wield it...

>
>
> 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.)

  Agreed to a great degree.  We also need Funding to achieve such
a role as well.  And that means lots of $$!

>
>
> 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.

  Well such a plan is not of Jefseys invention.  But yes, such a diverse
structure with many chapters is a good goal..

> 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

  Agreed.

>
>
> We need to "brand" the atlarge as what it truly is : the "atlarge".

  Exactly right!  >;)

>
>
> 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.

  It at time does seemlike and endless game I admit.  Perhaps though,
this organization would be better off just communicating directly
with the USG/DOC/NTIA and bypassing ICANN all together.
I know the we at INEGroup have had much more, but limited
success approaching the situation in this way.

>
>
> 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.

  Again atributing this approach to Jefsey is inaccurate.  None the less
such an approach is a good one, and needs tending to.  This approach
is the same approach that we at INEGroup have been doing for some
three years now with quite a bit of success, although membership
growth has slowed of late...

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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.

  A notable and perhaps a good idea here.  Yet, we need to get
the hosting of such a www.atlarge.org to someplace else other than
Marc's hosting it presently.

>
>
> 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

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