[atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings

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

I agree with Jan's assessment here : the primary objective of the At Large
movement should be to obtain democratic representation and a proper say for
millions of ordinary internet users in the running (and future) of the
Internet. This is an irreducible imperative because, frankly, this vast
constituency (far bigger than any other) effectively owns the Internet and
makes it what it is... they are the real stakeholders and yet they are
locked out by ICANN (at least from its Board - a catastrophic error).

There is NO EVIDENCE that ICANN has any intention to use these RALOs to "let
in" the democratic principle to its Board room (where the real power
resides) and as Jan says, the effect of participation in the RALOs will
inevitably be the dissipation of the democratic imperative which should
truly fuel and justify the At Large movement.

Basically (in the 'realpolitik' terms Esther loves to allude to) there is
nothing in it for the ICANN Board to grant the At Large its rightful
democratic place in control of their organisation... the Board (and its
friends and contacts) would stand to lose in all kinds of ways, even though
the human race as a whole would gain.

Therefore it is transparently obvious that the RALOs lead not to the
objectives of the At Large, but to the objectives of the Board. It is as
logical as that.

The RALOs are a vague, non-democratic, top-down attempt to sideline and
dissipate the At Large.

The emergent At Large organisations should not buy into this ICANN Board
Invention, but should mobilise to create their own independent umbrella
structure, so that they can press the case for Internet Democracy (or more
precisely, representation and accountability) from a position of unfettered
independence.

Season's greetings

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Jan Siren <sirenj@iu.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings
and PROPOSAL]

Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

I don't know, Esther - I've read the "Blueprint for Reform" and the
At-Large Advisory Committee Assistance Group (ALACAG) Report that describes
the "Regional At-Large Organizations" (RALOs).  The RALOs seem formless and
vague, lacking any characteristic that would motivate existing organizations
(*or* individuals, should the option be provided) to choose to join them
(and
thereby dilute and dissipate their influence with ICANN).  The RALOs don't
appear to point the way towards Internet democracy, which I feel should be
the ultimate goal of the At-Large.

As I read the ALACAG Report I was reminded of Hillary Clinton's attempt in
the early 90s to devise a national health-care system, itself a laudable
goal.  The "single payer" function of the Federal Government would be
exercised through negotiations and contracts with so-called regional "health
care alliances" among insurers and providers.  These were groups that
historically, had never pulled cooperatively in harness before.  Why should
they start doing so now, just because the Federal Government was providing
the money?  And nowhere in the proposal was any means provided for the
public, the ultimate recipients of health care, to express their needs and
preferences and thereby provide policy guidance for the "health care
alliances."  No one bought into the concept, and it foundered.  We're left
with the same hodge-podge we started with, and there are still around 40
million people in the US without a health plan.

The analogy between RALOs and "health care alliances" isn't perfect,
admittedly, but I'm convinced that the ALACAG failed to learn from history;
they just didn't try hard enough...



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