[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Dear DPF,
I am afraid you are not consistent in your hopes while clear about
your wishes.

At 11:09 21/10/02, DPF wrote:

It is very easy.  I have no desire to set up a nz@atlarge.

OK. Good it means that any NS person can pick the tab
and do it.


We have presently one organisation called icannatlarge.org

No we have none. And the very moment it incorporates it
will be exactly that an "at large" ICANN. IDNO wanted to
be an ICANN constituency, then we will have 11 people
palying ICANN BoD. Interest? Nil. Except to the 3 or 4 who
will enjoy it and duty to the others who will participate, just
in case somethng may happen.

For 2 years now between IDNO and @large the question
is "where and how to incorporate". It took me two hours to
do that 18 months ago and to have from that a real impact
on a few things. What is the impact of the all that work,
mailing, wasted hous ... "Where to Incorporate" is the
last game in e-town :-)


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.

I feel I read your last yera mails :-)  or may be the year before.:-)
Be candid ...you, we know we will go no where that way.

And if we incporated somewhere ... 20 people from all over the
world would start learning and arguing all the day long about the
law of the conerned country and spend thousands of mails
about quoting, arguing, law and jurisprudence they will never
use since they will never sue no one in NZ, USA, France or
Tuvalu.


>>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

I am afraid you miss the point :
- "I want" ????
- the impotant is that NZers may be met by others.

I certainly understand that you belong to the "2D" Arpanet culture
of a "computer access network". But we,ICANN should get real.
We are in 3D world. With people. @large are people with people's
needs. Not just InternetNZ or gTLD registrants.

You make policy. Are you caring about people as
names in a file or as people?


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.

1. a federation structure will never work
2. a confedreation structure might be
3. internet is a crowd. People do what they want.
   the problem is that some are making them
   believe they have to be permitted.


If we end up with tens of thousands of members then we will need
chapters etc.

hmmmm..... 10.000 is not something you end up with.
This is somethng you work very very hard to get.
In starteing your own structure alone.

You may work with a Parleament Member.
But you probably never were a candidate yourself
or you would not speak that way?


With 1,000 paper members and only a few score active
members they will just be a huge chunk of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy ?????
Let me be sure that I have 100 times more bureucracy with the Panel than with france@large :-)
What make bureaucracy are the structures built to look like a bureaucracy.
Structures built to make something, do things or just do nothing.

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.

I would phrase it differently. It is not the one supported by the no-doers.
Doers are different people. They just do.
Today we are blocked in waiting atlarge.org
We certainly wasted the momentum, making the things toughter to recover.


>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.

Here is where you are unconsistent.
The only reason in life why ISOC has some legitimacy
are its chapters. You want to be an alternatve to ISOC
but do not want to copy it. You refuse to copy it.

Cheers.
jfc




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