Re: [atlarge-discuss] Killing ICANNAtLarge by division

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 01:10:11 +0100, Alexander Svensson
<alexander@svensson.de> wrote:

>Joop, I don't mind diversity. I have been /constantly/
>arguing for an At Large model which does not view one
>organization as the monolithic one-size-fits-all model
>which everyone should join. But if agendas diverge,
>people should start *new* organizations at *new* domain
>names. There are plenty of opportunities and free domains
>to do so. There are even more opportunities to form
>alliances between these groups. But they should *not* 
>grab another organizations' membership lists and use a 
>confusingly similar domain name just because they have
>the control over that domain name. 

I agree 100%.  Joop's actions destroy any confidence I have in him to
be an advocate for the at large.  It is simply an abuse of his
position and a total failure to learn from the mistakes of the IDNO.  

I did not join Joop's version of an at large group - I joined the one
which has an elected panel, not a sole charge "boot strap".  I also
explicitly forbid me to be listed as part of any effort which is not
part of icannatlarge.org - our democratically selected name.

>I may be and have been
>critical of some former and current panel members, but 
>they have actually been *elected*. Acting in coup d'état
>mode does not particularly help *any* of the At Large 
>efforts.

Indeed.  There are quite a few I will not vote for again or even
campaign against.  But my frustration at the slowness of the panel to
knock up achievements is minimal compared to my disdain for a non
elected person taking unilateral action and abusing the position of
trust he has had.

>If you leave ICANNatlarge.org in anger and start a new group
>called "Net Users At Large" or something like that, I would not
>be disappointed. It's the abuse of control (over the domain name)
>which is disappointing and deserves criticism. 

Absolutely.  Nothing wrong with having parties such as the moderates
and the radicals and the pro-forums and pro-mailing lists.  They can
be factions within one organisation or quite separate competing
organisations.  But if separate they need to have separate identities.

>Your members' count should start at 1, like any other new
>organization.

Agreed.

>I still can't believe this is all happening because the web
>forums you liked so much have been defaced and the panel didn't
>see it as a priority to bring them back online. *sigh*

I know.  And the forums had a pitiful amount of use anyway.  Would
have been good to have them back earlier but it's not like they were
declaring martial law.

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