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

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

At what point do the individual internet users get to vote for Board members
again?

ICANN has chosen to expel the elected representatives of internet users and
keep the "insiders"... why should anyone trust ICANN's democratic instincts?

Would a group of individuals existing for a whole range of "Internet
Freedom" issues or "Globalisation" issues be able to participate within the
RALO, if ICANN governance was not their only or primary concern?

Many (most) internet users are more interested in a range of other issues
than they are in ICANN, and yet they should still have the right to a voice.

If I get 100 British organisations ranging from Greenpeace to Internet
Freedom to apply to participate in the European RALO, who has the right to
say "No" to them?

You see, Esther, it's not as simple as you make out... because every single
Internet User has a right to participate in Net governance... that's why the
RALO's and the At Large (User) Umbrella groups should be formed outside and
out of the reach of ICANN... in short, every single internet user has a
right to a vote, not just a few cognoscenti who can be more easily contained
and side-lined by ICANN

But you know and I know that ICANN would never allow the broader community
of Internet Users to take over the RALO...

And as I said at the top, ICANN has got rid of democratic representation
once : it has no intention of giving it back again. ICANN is not interested
in democracy, indeed ICANN is fearful of democracy. That's why it couldn't
stand having the At Large directors.

Esther - "Ms. Reasonable" as you're trying to present yourself at the
moment - the actions of ICANN have been reprehensible and they are a
discredited organisation. To suggest that the User community should entrust
the future of the Internet to them, or entrust the development of the At
Large to their 'umbrella' is ridiculous.

The community of Internet Users worldwide have been completely betrayed and
let down by ICANN. Now they need to develop their own RALOs and their own
voice - but until ICANN guarantees a majority of Board seats to the majority
constituency (the users) then the At Large should self-organise and draw
attention to the way ICANN is usurping the principles of democracy in favour
of vested interests and the "in" crowd...

Stick to talking to your Bilderberg friends, Esther : please do not talk
"democracy" or "representation" to the At large.

The At Large movement belongs wholly OUTSIDE an undemocratic organisation
like ICANN until such time as ICANN agree to hand over power to the vast
majority of ordinary users.

Your agenda (and Denise's) is a con and you know it!

Regards

Richard Henderson

PS: I challenge you to say "Yes" every single organisation with internet
users will be allowed to join the RALOs and evry single internet user will
be allowed to havea vote. I await your silence on that one...

...and even if you bluffed a "Yes" it would still be immaterial unless the
democratic principle was extended further and Internet Users were given
their democratic right as a majority to sit in a decisive voting role on the
ICANN Board...

Basically - in the wake of the AL directors expulsions - you offer us
nothing in democratic terms

----- Original Message -----
From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
To: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and
PROPOSAL


> Thanks, ALexanderl
>
> to ampligy on the RALOs, as I understand it, the idea is not to bless a
> single organization to form a RALO< but to get all the "at-large
> structures" in a region to join together to *form* the RALO.  In order for
> that to happen, obviously, the RALO is unlikely to be able to have much
> character of its own... it's merely a collection of individual orgs (and
> perhaps people) with a variety of opinions of their own.  The key
> requirement for the RALO is that its membership be open.  The idea is more
> to have some structure to communicate through to all the constituent orgs,
> than for the RALOs to be thick organizations themselves. Instead, they
> should be broad.
>
> Esther
>
> At 06:16 AM 12/20/2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >Hello Richard,
> >
> >At 20.12.2002 08:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >The idea that the At Large should be structured, promoted, and
developed
> > >WITHIN Icann is a disastrous wrong turning, as the whole issue has been
> > >about ICANN's desire to stifle, control or eject critical voices from
its
> > >organisation.
> >
> >You realize that you are in agreement with ardent critics of
> >the 2002 elections? The first At Large attempt was in fact
> >At Large WITHIN Icann -- At Large members had to sign up at
> >the ICANN website, they got PIN letters from ICANN and
> >elected ICANN directors.
> >
> >The Regional At Large Organizations (RALOs) are NOT WITHIN
> >Icann, and neither are the user groups which form the RALOs.
> >
> > >Since this is the battlefront which must be fought - the need and right
of
> > >ordinary people to criticise the Board and challenge its undemocratic
> > >authority - it is wholly unacceptable to allow ICANN to draw the
mechanism
> > >for challenging it, into a structure that ICANN determines, ICANN
directs,
> > >and ICANN develops.
> >
> >Ordinary people can at all times criticise and challenge
> >anything. The point is that unless they organize, they will
> >have little influence. The RALO structure has not been
> >determined by ICANN, the RALOs are not directed by ICANN
> >(the user groups will choose both the RALO leadership and
> >the way they are chosen), and I don't understand how ICANN
> >is supposed to "develop" the RALOs. If the RALOs are not
> >self-organizing, getting user groups in each region together,
> >we will simply not have any bottom-up user participation in
> >ICANN except for comment periods.
> >
> > >It is absolutely plain that ICANN is trying to create a 'tame'
controllable
> > >alternative to the REAL At Large, a kind of 'controlled' pretence of
> > >user-involvement, whereas the real independent views of ordinary users
are
> > >far more threatening to their powerbase and need to challenge the idea
that
> > >Internet Users should somehow be orchestrated and manipulated 'inside'
ICANN
> > >structures developed by ICANN.
> >
> >There's a major problem with your capital letters REAL At
> >Large: It does not REALly exist at the moment. Yes, there
> >is ICANNatlarge.org and there are user groups, but they
> >are not well-organized and thus don't have influence. To
> >see what Internet users want, you have to involve and
> >organize them. And hey -- there are lots of user groups
> >already out there, and I don't think they are willing to
> >be orchestrated and manipulated. Getting such user groups
> >in each region together to form a Regional At Large
> >Organization -- that's one way to get the REAL At Large.
> >
> > >Ordinary Internet Users need their own structures and organisations,
and
> > >their own independent voice, and the initiative to develop this plain
and
> > >distinct identity is not helped at all by the appearance of a worldwide
user
> > >structure *inside* ICANN.
> >
> >Again, the user groups and the RALOs are not INSIDE Icann.
> >There already are organizations of individual users out there,
> >and hopefully many more to come -- and all these organizations
> >are not about to *join* ICANN or something similar. They are
> >to form regional alliances.
> >
> > >A big problem I see is the confusion I think is created when leaders of
an
> > >independent group like IcannatLarge.org are helping and aiding the
> > >development of the ICANN 'pretence' which actually sidetracks and
detracts
> > >and endangers the likelihood of an independent At Large emerging. ICANN
will
> > >simply say (like a smiling tiger): "But we already have an At Large,
and
> > >RALO's etc etc". We are helping them build the very structure which
helps
> > >legitimise their fasle claim to be representing ordinary users (while
> > >expelling User representation from any real power). They will claim
that the
> > >reasonable and informed At Large already exists and has a home inside
their
> > >(carefully-controlled) structures.
> >
> >IcannatLarge.org was founded with the intent of having a
> >voice for user interests within ICANN. It is up to our
> >organization to choose how it bests achieves this goal.
> >If there is an opportunity to participate and IcannatLarge.org
> >deliberately chooses to stay away, that's fine. I just
> >don't think it makes much sense.
> >
> > >Whereas the truth is that ICANN itself is palpably illegitimate and
> > >unrepresentative, has chosen to expel dissenting voices, and clearly
and so
> > >obviously wants a captured At Large which it can contain.
> > >
> > >Vittorio and others, by participating in the development of this ICANN
> > >agenda being created for ICANN ends, are helping to legitimise the coup
> > >which ICANN has been carrying out : I believe that our organisation
should
> > >be given the chance to vote and decide whether they want to be ICANN
> > >insiders supporting the creation of an ICANN At Large, or whether they
want
> > >to be independent outside voices for the At Large community worldwide
of
> > >ordinary internet users.
> >
> >This is a skewed set of choices. You don't become an
> >ICANN insider by setting up a user organization or
> >forming a regional organization of At Large groups.
> >
> > >Vittorio will say that he is present at these meetings in his guise as
ISOC
> > >Italy rep but as Chair of IcannAtLarge I feel he is both compromising
the
> > >goals of that organisation and trying to draw IcannAtLarge.org into the
> > >ICANN structure and organisation.
> > >
> > >I respect Vittorio as a person but I disagree with his apparent
strategy. It
> > >is playing into the hands of Denise Michel (and for "Denise Michel"
read:
> > >"The ICANN Board" because she is of course their stooge). Denise has no
> > >interest in helping Internet Users form their own independent identity
and
> > >reclaiming their full number of places on the Board. Denise is carrying
out
> > >a management task for the ICANN Board. It is clearly a
damage-limitation
> > >exercise.
> >
> >Suffice it to say that I disagree.
> >
> > >And we want to *help* ICANN limit the damage to its reputation
following the
> > >expulsion of elected representation from its Board? We want to
*support*
> > >Denise Michel carry out her management goals? Denise is out of step and
out
> > >of tune with the noble, idealistic democratic impulse of the At Large
> > >movement, which wamts to protect the Internet for a future generation
of
> > >people all over the world. Denise is in it for the management and the
money
> > >and the career. She is the wrong person to be trusting and entrusting
with
> > >the future of the At Large.
> >
> >That's a harsh personal attack in the name of "noble,
> >idealistic democratic impulses".
> >But it is also factually wrong: The future of the At Large
> >rests with no single person. The regional At Large
> >structure is a way of influencing ICANN without "joining"
> >ICANN or having membership lists under the control of
> >ICANN. Independent, bottom-up user organizations can form
> >Regional At Large Organizations. It's a chance for a
> >network of Internet user groups in each region and
> >worldwide instead of a monolithic At Large user organization
> >(and the history of this organization's name/domain should
> >teach us something about single points of failure).
> >
> >I understand that many people are angry and disappointed,
> >but I hope they still consider the choices rationally:
> >How much influence has IcannatLarge.org had until now? How
> >has it achieved its (somewhat sloppily defined) goals?
> >Is it the best way to influence domain name etc. policy
> >development from a user perspective? Is a regional approach
> >likely to be easier or more difficult to organize (think
> >language, think communication, think time zones)? How
> >do you get existing user groups to participate?
> >
> >These are the questions we have to discuss *before* we have
> >the answer to the second question -- what IcannatLarge.org
> >should do with regard to regional At Large organizing.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >/// Alexander
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>
> PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
>
>
>


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