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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Future



At 30.11.2002 01:11, Richard Henderson wrote:
>*****[ 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. ]*****


Richard, I'm hearing you and I know that many others share
your point of view "let's keep outside the ICANN process".
The problem is that I have heard very little convincing
proposals how those people who want to keep outside the
ICANN process will try to influence the ICANN process. 

One direction has of course been alternative roots (or "inclusive"
or whatever). I'm personally not interested in that approach,
your mileage may vary.

One other direction has been trying to influence the United 
States Department of Commerce to re-bid the contracts. We have
had this discussion in the DNSO GA. I cannot say that I was
surprised that the contracts were indeed extended. In addition,
I don't feel that I -- as a EU citizen -- can do very much to
convince the Bush administration to do or not do anything.
Again, your mileage may vary.

Then come the hazy proposals. Form alliances, come together,
argue the case, form a network. It's all fine and well as long
as you have a mission *AND* a way to *achieve* it. It's not
that people with a mission are lacking. But without a way to
achieve what you intend, alliances and networks won't work.

There is a lot of animosity towards the RALOs and the ALAC.
As far as people see the ALAC as less than the originally
planned nine At Large directors, I can understand that. But
why does it extend to an unwillingness to even consider
forming or joining regional organizations? If you are 
building a Latin American ICANN At Large group, does it suddenly
become evil when it forms/joins the Latin American RALO?
So it seems to run down to the question of lending legitimacy.
Some people don't want to touch anything which has to do with
ICANN. Frankly, I believe these people will not achieve any
of their goals in the DNS/IP/root policy area. Organizing
regional structures means creating a structure which ICANN
can indeed point to and say: "Look, here's where users can
participate." But organizing regional structures also means
creating a structure where users can indeed voice their concerns,
start a GNSO policy development process, send liaisons to SOs,
participate in the Board discussions (transparency, anyone?)
and have a not so unimportant role on the Nominating Committee.
Please consider if any proposed network outside the ICANN 
process will have *more* impact on ICANN than this structure
or less.

I join Richard in thanking Vittorio and Sotiris for their time
and energy.

Best regards,
/// Alexander


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