Re: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 003 - Update and Action List

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

Hans and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  I agree with you here Hans.  So Hans, how are the Bylaws, Charter
and Articles of incorporation coming along that the Panel was elected
to do as their primary tasks?

  My pledge from the beginning was to provide for a funding model
and process.  I have exceeded that task by also providing some
small amount of funding in Trust/holding account I have already briefly
outlined for this organization.

Hans Klein wrote:

> Richard, Danny, and others:
>
> Aren't we then saying pretty similar things?
>
> Danny says we need to provide input to ICANN (external action).
> Richard says that we need to build our membership and organization
> (internal action).
> Both are important and necessary.
>
> So the real questions might be:
> * Can different people do different tasks (internal and external) in
> parallel?   If so, let's stop debating and start doing!
>
> * Must we choose between tasks?  For example, if we focus on ICANN's
> Shanghai meeting, does that mean we cannot pursue other important work?  If
> we must choose, then my highest immediate priority is to have a presence in
> Shanghai.  But I am not sure we must choose.
>
> Richard: why don't you and Jefsey work out an action plan for your
> vision.  What would france.atlarge.org do?  Who will be on it?
>
> Danny: can you help me and others to develop substantive inputs? How can we
> have an impact in Shanghai?
>
> Hans
>
> At 02:22 PM 10/20/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >Danny
> >
> >There is right and there is wrong in what you say. It is a useful reminder
> >to us that we should be driven by outcomes. However you do not overturn the
> >policies of the dominant government of the world overnight. As an example, I
> >presume you must have mailed 100's of posts to the GA list and others over
> >the past year. And the outcome? The interests of the AtLarge are even less
> >represented now than they were previously. Deduction: you can send 1000
> >messages to Icann but they will achieve nothing because Icann is corrupt.
> >Icann make the rules up as they go along.
> >
> >I agree with you that we should express substantive positions on a range of
> >topics, depending on our areas of expertise. I believe this is exactly what
> >Hans was proposing recently. In my case, I have submitted over 500 posts to
> >the Icann Public Forums on the new TLDs - not to mention articles and posts
> >to IcannWatch, letters to DoC, to Congressmen, to the US and UK media
> >(including minor BBC coverage), to the ITU with whom I've also shared phone
> >conversations, the GAC, the UK government, the Registrar community and
> >unanswered mail to the Icann Board (now 200 days and counting). In addition,
> >I worked in collaboration with others to record the detail of the new TLD
> >roll-outs and this was all recorded on websites.
> >
> >However, the fact remains that ICANN has merely strengthened its powerbase,
> >and diminished its accountability to users, because - fundamentally - it
> >still secures the backing of US government.
> >
> >As an organisation - and I thank you for focussing our minds on this - we
> >would do well to construct an architecture for identifying, listing and
> >requesting contributions on a range of subjects such as those you define.
> >
> >But the bottom line is we are engaged in a battle we can only win if (as you
> >once pointed out) we create a coalition of AtLarge groups and others. We can
> >publish a million "articles" but Icann will not be moved. What we need to do
> >is "be representative of the internet majority". This is our primary role :
> >to create a structure and an organisation which can come to claim a moral
> >position by weight of numbers, or by weight of supporting organisations.
> >
> >Because, in the end, we need to by-pass Icann altogether. Trying to go
> >through Icann itself is a dead end road.
> >
> >Hence much of what we have been trying to achieve in these early days has
> >been about structure and scope. I agree we have been FAR too slow, and I
> >agree we should also address relevant subjects as an organisation - but the
> >PRIMARY NEED of USERS is to find an organisation where they can be
> >democratically represented and where there is a structure where they can (as
> >individuals or groups) express their views.
> >
> >The central issue regarding Icann is accountability. They are - in reality -
> >accountable to the US government alone (which is exactly what best suits
> >USG). What we need to achieve is an @Large movement which becomes an
> >embarrassment to the US government and an ally of various governments
> >worldwide who can refer to us with credibility as the voice (or voices) of
> >the ordinary user.
> >
> >That is the beauty of Jefsey's www.atlarge.org construct. It doesn't even
> >require us to all speak with one voice. It creates a framework, an umbrella,
> >under which an At Large movement of various organisations can begin to
> >emerge.
> >
> >The At Large is NOT icannatlarge.org ! The At Large is not a "top-down"
> >single organisation publishing edicts and policy positions. The At Large is
> >the multiplicity of ordinary users who are willing to self-organise and
> >participate. There will be www.france.atlarge.org and there will be
> >www.cecua.atlarge.org (where we track what they say or allow them to speak
> >for themselves) and there will be www.uk.atlarge.org and there can even be
> >www.danny.atlarge.org ... there is space within Jefsey's architecture for a
> >thousand different bottom-up voices.
> >
> >Seen in this light, we are ALL participating, and have been for some time.
> >My 500 posts to the Icann Forum (however ineffective) may not be an
> >organisational statement, but they are a participation in the At Large all
> >the same. Sure, I agree with you, we can put together more centralised
> >statements on a range of issues - but the most important thing is:
> >
> >Here we are. We are internet users. We seek a voice (and many, often
> >divergent) voices for the biggest constituency of all - the ordinary people
> >of the world.
> >
> >I agree with you Danny, there is much - MUCH - more we can do. But we are,
> >at least, in process... and like you, I wait to see what actually evolves.
> >
> >To repeat Danny, you have been fastidious in your attention to Icann and its
> >policies for a sustained period of time. Outcome (with respect): Icann is
> >even less accountable than it was before.
> >
> >What they fear, because it would be OUTSIDE their control, is an At Large
> >which truly takes on international proportions and scale - and becomes a
> >publicly visible expression of a "government in exile" for the internet, an
> >alternative voice with a moral high ground, a democratic and open organ of
> >the many as opposed to the corporate closed vested interest corrupt quango
> >which is Icann - accountable to no-one except their sponsors, and
> >representing no-one.
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> >To: <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>;
> ><hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> >Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 1:01 PM
> >Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 003 - Update and Action List
> >
> >
> > > Richard,
> > >
> > > Why should anyone want to join an organization that does nothing?
> > >
> > > A legitimate user organization works to solve user concerns.  This group
> >has
> > > not even discussed any user issues, let alone proposed any possible
> > > solutions.  When was the last time that anyone on this list started a
> > > sustained discussion on:
> > >
> > > transfers
> > > deletes
> > > UDRP
> > > sales of bulk WHOIS data
> > > privacy
> > > escrow
> > > collisions in namespace
> > > Internationalized domain names
> > > abusive registrar practices
> > > namespace differentiation
> > > new gTLD evaluation
> > > hoarding/warehousing
> > > the lack of Code of Conduct industry guidelines
> > > registry-level competition
> > > policy formulation procedures
> > >
> > > At the moment, there are at least three different Task Forces requesting
> > > comments on user issues:  WHOIS, transfers, and deletes.  Will this
> > > organization provide any commentary to actually help solve the user issues
> > > being considered by these task forces?  Of course not.  Instead it will
> > > continue to portray itself as a champion of the user without ever doing a
> > > damn thing to actually help solve the user problems of the moment.  Every
> > > day, this group reminds me more and more of the IDNO that claimed to
> > > represent individual domain name holders but never did a single thing to
> > > address their issues and concerns.
> > >
> > > All of this talk about outreach is far too premature.  You have to give
> > > people something of value if you want to entice them to join.  So far, I
> >see
> > > nothing of value... no discussion papers, no recommendations, no letters
> >to
> > > ICANN, no letters to the Department of Commerce, no correspondence with
> >the
> > > GAC, no dialogue or interaction with the ERC, no results from any working
> > > groups, no dedicated working group lists, no bylaws, no proposed solutions
> >to
> > > any user problems... in short, no real reason to join.
> > >
> > > As a user, I am looking for a group that offers the reasonable prospect of
> > > delivering results by providing real solutions to real problems.  In my
> > > opinion, that isn't happening here.  Perhaps you can manage to turn things
> > > around, but I, for one, am getting very tired of waiting for results that
> > > never seem to materialize.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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