Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and PROPOSAL

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

At 20.12.2002 10:46, Richard Henderson wrote:
>Thanks for replying at length, Alexander.
>
>The RALO's of course have to be "accepted" by ICANN and they have to sign a
>MoU. 
>Furthermore, if different groups take a different view on (eg)
>individuals voting, and more than one group approaches ICANN ro form a RALO
>for (eg) Europe, then it's going to be ICANN who decides which group to be
>the RALO.

That's correct -- and a question of unity. I certainly
hope that we get a diversity of At Large structures,
but a common RALO proposal. The stronger the RALO 
proposal, the smaller the chances that anyone can make
major modifications.

>At the Amsterdam meeting, Denise sat on the fence about whether individuals
>would be able to participate in the RALOs or merely organisations; and
>Esther clearly takes the view that if it doesn't work we'll change the
>rules.

I haven't been to Amsterdam, and I only just listened
to the first hour of the first meeting MP3 (thanks, Bret!),
but this question (individuals at the RALO level) is not
a question of the *role* of individuals, but of organization.
Some people want At Large structures composed of individuals
in the RALO; some people want individuals in the RALO; I 
don't know whether anyone has a proposal which allows both
to interact at the same level (I would have some doubts
whether that is going to work out); some see individual
participation in the RALO as perspective for the future.

Personally, I think we should start with At Large structures
(which consists of individual members) forming a RALO.
I dislike the idea of confederations becoming RALO members.
But in the end, the decision is up to the regions.

<snip ICANN's track record>

>For all these reasons, Alexander, I think I have the reason to be sceptical.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't! Sceptical-rational-realistic
is fine with me! 

>You seem to imply that User Groups and ordinary internet users can't
>organise themselves without ICANN organising the RALOs and overseeing the
>structures. Why ever not?

No, I didn't want to imply that. I expressly said that such
user groups already exist today. What is missing is a
link, a bridge, a mechanism for aggregating user input, 
getting it into the ICANN structure *and* ensuring that it
is not ignored. I'm not saying that the RALO/ALAC is the
solution to that, but I think it is part of the solution.

>When do we stop kowtowing to ICANN and stop treating them as if they were
>the centre of the universe?
>
>If you want a free, independent and critical voice for internet users, why
>tie it up with ICANN?
>
>If we tie it up with ICANN, we'll be tied up with ICANN.
>
>ICANN has no interest in the voice of the At Large. They have made that
>quite plain. There interest is in running the root in the best interests of
>the US Government and in the interests of Big Business, Trademark Lobby, and
>their close friends and associates in the "Domain Industry".
>
>Their only interest in the At Large at present is window-dressing.

Let's assume you are right. Does that mean that bringing
user groups together and organizing them regionally is
wrong? Not necessarily -- they could become well-informed
and gain influence through expertise and participation.
(In addition, I'm more optimistic: There is no singular
"ICANN thinks this or that". There are people with different
points of view. The Board is not monolithic, the staff isn't
either.)

<snipping more>

>Look at what ICANN has done. Look how discredited they are. They will NEVER
>truly let in the At Large because ICANN is not a democracy project, but an
>instrument of US policy.
>
>Unfortunately the future of the Internet IS a democracy project. And therein
>lies the battlefront and the clash of cultures.

Well, there we have a disagreement. I actually don't
think ICANN should focus on being "a democracy project".
Before I receive severe verbal punishment ;), let me 
explain: ICANN has a limited job which it should do well.
In order to do it well, *I* for one think it needs
both input and output legitimacy, or somewhat abbreviated:
ICANN needs to listen to everyone, have proper procedures,
not favour anyone etc. and the results it produces must
be convincing. Not just the two of us probably agree that it 
is currently lacking on both sides. Still, "democracy"
as aimed for in public policy decision-making in nation 
states is probably too high a goal for ICANN and will
always be. To some degree, we'll have to rely on
governments to check on ICANN. But that doesn't mean that
user input can or should be ignored. 

<snip>

>I'm sorry, Alexander, you're entitled to your view (and I'm smart enough to
>understand it) but it really just smooth-talks and coaxes people into
>accepting "life under ICANN".

I don't think many of the entities you see as the powers 
behind ICANN are completely satisfied with the way things 
are. Neither am I. I think forming regional alliances of
user organizations is a good step in the right direction.
If ICANN started to throw out critical groups, the regional
alliances would be organized enough to prevent any such
intervention -- or walk out. But I don't see how the groups
that have intentionally *decided* to stay out have had
much influence. But you're of course entitled to your view! :)

Thanks for your in-depth reply!
Best regards,
/// Alexander 


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