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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:44:01 +0200, "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin"
<jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote:

>At 06:21 21/10/02, DPF wrote:
>>This is why I have made the offer of free incorporation and a proposed
>>set of bylaws or a constitution - so that progress can be made on
>>substantive issues.  Personally I don't care much where we incorporate
>>or the exact nature of the bylaws as long as they are democratic and
>>workable.  But what I don't want is another six months spent on them.
>
>Dear DPF,
>could you tell us what prevents you to do what I did 18 month ago and you 
>documented perfectly: to incorporate nz@atlarge to unite the NS @large 
>people and to represent them seriously in the @large international Congress?

It is very easy.  I have no desire to set up a nz@atlarge.  My offer
was not to do so.  While you may have a view as to how you want the at
large structured it is not one that appears at all realistic or
feasible at this point in time.

We have presently one organisation called icannatlarge.org and it
needs to incorporate somewhere and establish a set of rules to operate
under.  I have made an offer to facilitate this.  I don't mind if the
offer is declined as long as it happens somewhere sometime soon so we
can get onto substantive issues.

>>We are not going to grow this organisation much further unless we
>>actually start to do things.
>
>Decision is yours. I will not incorporate nz@large. I can give you an 
>address. I can give you a site. I can give you a mailing list if you really 
>need it; but I cannot register it for you, I cannot meet the Auckland 
>press, I cannot set-up meetups there, I cannot dialog with ISPs, etc...

Again I have no desire to set up a nz@large.  To be blunt we do not
need one.  For issues around .nz we have InternetNZ.  For issues
around gTLDs I just want NZers along with all other citizens of the
world to be able to join icannatlarge.org.  If a group of people want
to form their own chapters good on them, but I don't think a
federation structure is going to work, especially at this point in
time.

If we end up with tens of thousands of members then we will need
chapters etc.  With 1,000 paper members and only a few score active
members they will just be a huge chunk of bureaucracy.

you can disagree with me as is your right, but your vision of
icannatlarge is not one endorsed by the membership so don't be
surprised that others don't comply with it.

>ISOC are exactly @large organization requested by ALSC. Some generous move 
>is going to happen 12 months from now (at renewal): @large are going to 
>take over ICANN.
>
>It will be all over the press "Internet management is given to the Internet 
>users: ICANN is made a part of ISOC. This way the Internet governance is 
>eventually made homogenous, IAB, IETF, ICANN are all now part of the 
>Internet Society, the operator of ".org" which funds the Internet 
>governance. The US government removes itself from its direct involvement in 
>the worldwide Internet".

Yes this is possible but less likely as they are now a registry owner
and have a huge conflict of interest.  We do agree that we need to get
active and be a viable credible alternative to ISOC in terms of at
large representation.

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

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