[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] Future
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 01:11:58 -0000, you wrote:
>*****[ 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. ]*****
The issue here is: ICANN is already creating such "rallying point", in
the form of the ALAC/RALOs mechanism. How do we relate with it? Do we
want to "melt down" into it, or to help its creation while staying
independent, or to join it later once someone else will have started
it, or to ignore it and stop participating in ICANN, or even to
compete with it and fight it? This is a key issue for what regards our
Personally, I would not consider the extreme options: either we decide
that we want to play an important role in the creation of the
mechanism, so that we can try to influence its characteristics while
it's still under creation, or we follow our road and we postpone the
issue of whether it's the case to join the RALOs or not.
>*****[ 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.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see which kind of "strength" we could ever
get by refusing to participate in ICANN. We could always be attacked
on the basis of "it's you who refuse to cooperate, not us". This
scenario could help us if ICANN disappeared... but up to now, there is
no sign that it will happen.
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. ]*****
If you send someone to observe, you must not predetermine the outcome
of the observation. If you have decided that nothing good will ever
come from ICANN, that's fine (I think that there are good reasons that
push you and many others to think so), but you cannot ask anyone to
participate just to condemn.
>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.
I am sorry. There has been no credible prospect of 9 elected At Large
Directors since the beginning of year 2001. The ALSC proposal called
for six, and it was immediately rejected. The fact is that the initial
"Blueprint for Reform", in early 2002, called for no At Large
representation of any kind. Not that I am happy about this, of course.
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org