[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] Future

[Vivek Durai <vivek@vivekdurai.com>]

Dear VB,

Kindly note that I support and second Richard's comments. 

I have one additional comment:

Insofar as Joop's website is concerned, I am beginning to come to the 
conclusion that a multiplicity of websites is the answer. What must be avoided 
is a multiciplicity of overlapping membership lists. We must now allow many 
more websites under the umbrella of a stripped down organizational site. We 
need to create some structure automated or otherwise of exchanging membership 
lists. Other than that, we must recognise that it is the initiative of 
individuals, not groups, that lead to new ideas, in most cases. 

We must not put all our eggs in one basket. So a multiplicity of websites, 
representing a multiplicity of outreach efforts is to be encouraged. If joop 
wants to run a website, good for him. If he succeeds in  creating a large 
membership base, what locus do we have to critiize him, eh? If Jefsey wants to 
go of on his tangent, that's the way to go. But we can help by providing a set 
of common policies that allow these websites to be affiliated under a common 
umbrella.

However, if you want this organisation to source its legitmacy to ALAC, I would 
strongly oppose the same. That is a shortcut to destroying all these months of 
effort. 

Regards,

Vivek Durai


Quoting Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>:

> My comments below:
> *****[bracketed and starred]*****
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:54 AM
> Subject: [atlarge-panel] Future
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I am sure that the At Large has to be a coalition of many different
> independent groups;
> 
> *****[ That is exactly my point. We are NOT "the" At Large... We are "one"
> expression of user interest, among "many"... Therefore the big game is the
> construction of a coalition that will confront ICANN ]*****
> 
> and most of us here, including myself, would be
> able to start an At Large organization on their own, to put up a
> website with their hands, to start discussion lists and forums, and to
> get a good number of members in a few weeks.
> 
> *****[ Exactly so - this should be the goal... creating enough populist
> common ground on matters of Internet freedom and governance - couple the
> two
> because they are linked - to motivate the sprouting up of At Large groups
> all over the globe, which can congregate as a multiplicity around some
> common focal point / website / umbrella... we should encourage
> multiplicity,
> but we should be strategic and create a "rallying point" for a whole range
> of User Groups. ]*****
> 
> (snip...)
> 
> Now, what is unbelievable to me is that most of the few resources and
> energies we have are wasted in ego clashes and process discussions, so
> that we can't actually achieve anything; and that a good number of us
> put their own vision and agenda above anything else.
> 
> *****[ This is human nature, and this is OK, and this is exactly why we
> should encourage multiplicity, but also seek to create a credible umbrella
> for hundreds of At Large / User groups ]*****
> 
> I have been re-elected Chair (mostly for desperation, I suppose) two
> weeks ago.
> 
> *****[ No, you were regarded as generally fair in your role as Chairman the
> first time round, and it is a compliment to you that people trust you
> again,
> Vittorio. I do not agree with some of your views, but I believe you
> genuinely try to act as a facilitator.]*****
> 
> As my first actions, I have tried to get our website
> updated (as it is still inviting people to join the Shanghai
> meeting...)
> 
> *****[ This is laughable and pathetic! I run over 100 websites and even my
> young daughter runs her own site and keeps it up to date, and she's just a
> schoolkid. The failure to plan out the structure and day-to-day management
> of our website is a calamity, and there's no excuse for it. As a panel
> member, I share the blame as much as anyone else. For goodness sake, how
> can
> we have a website running a month out of date with (as yet) no plan for how
> the website should be structured and developed?]*****
> 
> 
> and to find two persons who would take responsibility for
> leading work on the website and on the bylaws. Up to now, I could not
> find any. Even if I wanted to do it myself (and I don't want, for the
> reason I mentioned above) I don't even have the passwords to access
> our own website - neither the .org, nor the .com.
> 
> *****[ Reality check here, Vittorio : .com has gone and Joop has formally
> notified us that the website has brached off. That is his prerogative,
> whether we like it or not, because he is the registrant of the domain. He
> has the authority to do it. As for the .org : who specifically has the
> password to access the .org website? This has to be clarified
> immediately. ]*****
> 
> Moreover, I once had passwords to check the full membership list on
> the .com site, but apparently Joop has changed them, so I must confess
> that the Chair and the panel don't even have the full membership roll
> for this organization (I have a copy made in September, perhaps
> someone else has a newer one, I will check).
> 
> *****[ Second reality check : the membership will probably continue to grow
> through Joop's offshoot (which at present is a website with no democratic
> mandate). 1000+ Google hits lead people to Joop's offshoot. None lead
> people
> to .org. Furthermore, Joop may retain many of those 1000 members whether we
> like it or not. How many will take the trouble to ask to be removed? Very
> few. Even if people condemn this, its a de facto reality. ]*****
> 
> So, there are a number of options in front of us.
> 
> *****[ I reject both the options you propose, Vittorio - I'm sorry! ]*****
> 
> If there are at least a few people who, together with me, want to
> continue this effort, we can actually start to do some work, provided
> that Joop gives us an updated membership list, and Bret gives us the
> passwords to access the icannatlarge.org site. But we need to have a
> group of people who want to cooperate and share the same goal, not to
> stay there just to keep "a feet in two shoes".
> 
> In this first case, there are two sub-options:
> 
> *****[ No! There are many more than the 2 Icann-centric options you
> propose,
> Vittorio! ]*****
> 
> 
>  the first is that we
> continue aiming to become a global At Large organization, that will
> later decide whether and how to register as an At Large Structure and
> participate in ICANN's ALAC.
> 
> *****[ Our goal should NOT be to participate in Icann's ALAC, but rather
> our
> goal should be to form a global network and coalition of User Groups which
> find their meeting point and coherence, not in Icann's ALAC, but as a
> strong
> and independent netwide worldwide coalition of Users and Ordinary People.
> Our goal should not be to shore up Icann's travesty and perpetuate ICANN's
> agenda. Our goal should be to establish ourselves as a worldwide network
> and
> coalition of Users OUTSIDE Icann, arguing the case for Internet Freedom and
> User Participation from a growing position of strength. ALAC diminishes
> what
> we should be trying to do, and places us in a position of weakness. We must
> NOT legitimise the processes which have come about as the result of the
> EXPULSION of fairly-elected representation for ordinary users. The very
> most
> I think we should do is to send "observers" along the lines of Sotiris, who
> are sceptical and critical and condemnatory. ]*****
> 
> 
> The second is that we become the informal
> seed of the Regional At Large Organizations required in the new ICANN
> picture, splitting into smaller "constituent" working groups in each
> continent, so to ensure that they will be open and bottom-up. This
> might be a more achievable target, and might help in reducing
> conflicts.
> 
> 
> *****[ Sorry, but NO, NO, NO !!! The RALOs are Icann's attempt to HI-JACK
> the At Large movement and bring it under the control of its own At Large
> umbrella... If we oppose the RALOs we can take the initiative and build up
> truly independent voices worldwide, region by region, country by country...
> not as part of Icann's 'fake' organisation, but as part of the Human Race.
> By all means let us develop bottom up and create an At Large structure like
> bolivia.atlarge.org or germany.atlarge.org etc etc - as has been repeatedly
> proposed. But we do this as ourselves, NOT as part of ICANN's attempts to
> control, contain and stifle the At Large movement! The world is so big,
> that
> Icann cannot possibly control or contain us, if we develop regionally, and
> nationally, outside of Icann - their only hope to contain the "threat" of
> Users and Democracy is to keep the At Large movement somehow INSIDE
> Icann...
> that is exactly what the ALAC and the RALOs attempt to do... I say, no, we
> believe that the Users of the world are NOT answerable to a corrupt board
> of
> a few industry insiders whose track record includes the dismantlement of
> the
> democratic At Large process... look at their track record... and don't
> legitimise them... create the TRUE At Large instead... we can do it... I
> renew my call for the creation of a structure which will devolve control of
> local At Large's to local groups, and will devolve sections of a website to
> local groups... as Bruce as pointed out, this is vital for outreach... THIS
> should be our plan and our project, not trying to 'reason' with Icann, who
> just change the rules as they go along, to marginalise the vital User
> Community. If we have got distracted, it is in trying to accommodate
> Icann's
> own agenda, when we should have been busy building our own. No to Icann's
> RALOs. We are our own movement and we construct our own regional/national
> multiplicities independent of Icann. ]*****
> 
> But if there are no other people who want to continue this effort, we
> can stop here and be happy with the results we already achieved.
> 
> *****[ Happy with the results so far!!! 12 months ago: prospect of 8 or 9
> elected At Large Board Members. Now: a small fraction - easily outvoted by
> the industry placemen - on a nominating committee... and no clear
> guarantees
> about that because Icann's track record is to change the rules or ignore
> their own promises if it suits them. This is not a "happy result" - this is
> an ignominious defeat for democracy and ordinary people. Remember: the
> Internet belongs to all of us, all of us who devote years of our lives to
> websites, people who educate through it, people who strive for minorities
> through it, people who communicate with loved ones through it, people who
> trade through it. It si the resource of the whole world, which - in a
> dangerous era - can help bring us closer. Icann is a small clique trying to
> hold it to ransom, and has acted AGAINST democracy in its own ranks. They
> have EXPELLED fairly-elected people from future participation in their
> Board, and now offer a sidelined ghetto for a few people, until it suits
> them to change the rules again. I am not "happy" with this result. We
> should
> NOT legitimise it. We should organise and mobilise to construct a REAL at
> large in OPPOSITION - a worldwide movement that talks to the media, and
> which achieves numerical 'authority' through alliance and coalition. ]*****
> 
> When
> we started in March, there was absolutely no At Large on the ICANN
> picture,
> 
> *****[There was no At Large on the ICANN picture, because Icann had booted
> the At Large out of the picture. They EXPELLED us, they aborted the process
> of democratization, and you think you can "do business" as normal with
> these
> people? Please listen now: "THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED". ]*****
> 
> 
>  while, thanks to the efforts of a few people, but also to the
> simple existence of this organization, now at least we have an At
> Large council which will elect 1/4 of the Nominating Committee,
> 
> *****[ That's no use, it just gets outvoted or they change the rules
> again... it's a sop to the DoC to make it appear that Users are being
> "involved" when actually democracy has been overturned and the At Large has
> been booted off the Board. ]*****
> 
> 
> nominate liaisons to the Board and GNSO Council,
> 
> 
> *****[ Oh great! I'm so happy! Hundreds of millions of Internet Users - in
> other words almost everyone - is going to be granted "liaisons"... um...
> power? ... NIL .... um ability to vote... NIL... "liaisons" means
> nothing...
> "liaisons" means, good, now the USG can claim that their puppet ICANN is
> addressing the need for User Representation... actual power for users...
> NIL. This whole "liaison" thing achieves for us: NIL. It's a sham. It is
> nothing. ]*****
> 
> 
> and will be formed
> for 2/3 by people elected from the bottom. It's not our dream, but
> it's much more than what we had eight months ago.
> 
> So it's up to you, folks. Please speak. Particularly, I would like to
> understand how many of the other panelists are still willing to work
> for this organization and to devote some real amount of time to it.
> 
> 
> *****[ I am interested in working for the creation of an Independent At
> Large coalition including this organisation, which does well by exploring
> and demonstrating democratic representation in its processes. I am
> simultaneously exploring the idea of an "umbrella" and "rallying point" for
> a multiplicity of groups who share concerns about Internet Freedom and
> Internet Governance. It would be great if this organisation chooses to take
> the lead in the promotion of this umbrella. If it prefers not to, then so
> be
> it. Others will just move on without it. The Regional organisation of the
> At
> Large is going to proceed OUTSIDE the ICANN RALOs. That is my total
> conviction. I am happy to contact and invite every single person on our
> membership e-mail list to participate in such a regional initiative, and
> let
> them choose and decide for themselves. Obviously I would be happy if
> IcannatLarge.org or IcannatLarge.com or WorldatLarge.org or AtLarge.org
> contacted any and all of these people (along with hundreds of kindred
> organisations). As far as I'm concerned, anything's fair game, as long as
> individuals themselves get to choose what they want to be involved in. Yes,
> Vittorio, I am willing to work for this organisation, or for several
> organisations. It is outcomes that matter, and I have little interest in an
> Icann-centric outcome. So willingness to participate, and the motivation to
> participate, depends very much on what this group is about - we have still
> so far not defined that clearly. What I expect is that IcannatLarge.org
> will
> become a small group trying to work with the ICANN ALAC and RALOs scam, and
> that other independent initiatives will overtake it and supercede it. I
> genuinely expect that to happen. And I am more than happy to travel on with
> the new groups. Why wouldn't I? I'm happy to belong to scores of groups if
> necessary. In terms of channelling time and energy, it's obvious that I or
> anyone else will channel our time and energy into the orgs which most
> closely pursue the goals and convictions we hold. We may diverge, we may
> unite, but we share a number of key central beliefs : we believe ordinary
> users should be decisively represented in the running of the Internet; we
> believe that Internet Freedom is threatened if the future of the Internet
> is
> handed over lock, stock and barrel to powerful vested interests. The stake
> are too high to be "nice" about this. Either IcannatLarge.org works, or
> something else takes over instead. At present we can't even run and update
> our website, something my 12 year old could do. And we're STILL talking
> about ALAC and the RALOs as if they're in some way legitimate. Sorry, but
> people will just say "Bye"... ]*****
> 
> 
> (In the meantime, I'm asking Joop to disclose the membership list and
> change the name and look and feel of his site, so that there can't be
> confusion.)
> 
> 
> *****[ Or should WE change the look and feel of OUR site? ... and
> meanwhile,
> please could Bruce and I be given a mandate to develop www.atlarge.org as
> an
> umbrella both for ourselves and also for other fellow travellers, so we can
> all congregate, and construct our own "ralos" outside Icann ... now THAT
> would be a site worth making... THAT is the site that would really threaten
> Icann... ]*****
> --
> vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
> 
> 
> *****[ Lastly Vittorio, can I thank you for your time and commitment to a
> good and noble cause. You see, we can be different and diverse, and we are
> a
> multiplicity, not something uniform and controlled top-down. I like the
> idea
> of an At Large Coalition which has good people like Vittorio following his
> star, and others following theirs, but all believing in the defence and
> protection of the Internet in the name of the people. ]*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 
> 
> 




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