[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and PROPOSAL
What is the point of being "part" of that structure, if you know the Board
will overrule you, if you know the Board has already kicked you out of the
Boardroom, if you know that the Board is determined to resist democratic
representation, if you know the Board has a track record of favouring a
small coterie of Big Business interests, if you know the Board wants to
marginalise you, if you know the Board is cynical and manipulative, if you
know the Board is opposed to the primary goal of the At Large?
You say the At Large *has* to be part of the "structure" to influence
events...
Firstly, that structure has been set up to support and protect industry
insiders and the trademark lobby, and to defend their interests against the
rest of the world and its democratic claims to have a decisive role in the
governance of the Internet. The structure is *wrong* and is loaded against
the Internet User constituency. Participation in a *wrong* and *negative*
structure, imposed top-down and without democratic accountability, will
merely help perpetuate the bias against ordinary users.
Secondly, you are incorrect to imply that the At Large would have less
influence if it organised and mobilised *outside* the ICANN structure. Why
on earth shouldn't it? It is *far* bigger than ICANN and should ultimately
replace it. It is the biggest constituency of all, consisting of hundreds of
millions of ordinary users who lay claim to the internet, possess the
internet, and make the internet what it is. It will be far clearer and far
more influential if the At Large movement mobilises under an umbrella
*outside* ICANN and creates clear water between ICANN and themselves. It
will be far clearer if the At Large movement *REPUDIATES* Icann (and all its
machinations, bias, tricks and deceit).
Sorry Esther, but you seriously expect people to "trust" Icann and its
Board? You've got to be joking.
Time and time and time again, you urge people (basically) to just "accept"
their diminished position as a powerless subordinate in this "wonderful"
Icann structure which preserves Internet governance in the hands of a few
rather than in te hands of the people.
It's a trick, Esther.
You just don't want the *democratic* version.
The internet exists for millions of individuals, not just for a small number
of industry suppliers. One person, one vote - and let the internet users of
the world determine the future shape of THEIR net, not the tiny fraction of
people who are making a living from the process of DNS supply.
I repeat, the ICANN structure is deliberately constructed to protect vested
interests. The At Large should not legitimise that structure. The At Large
should develop its own coalition of sympathetic groups and individuals,
under an independent umbrella which is very clearly independent of ICANN and
a repudiation of it.
The claims of the At Large are too big to be met by ICANN's imposed
structure and agenda.
That's the bottom line.
That's the 'realpolitik'.
Regards -
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
To: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Cc: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>; Atlarge Discuss List
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and
PROPOSAL
> SOrry, but I think this misses the point.
>
> ICANN is not "the board" or even the staff. ICANN is all the Internet
> participants (registries, registrars, root servers) who have contracts
with
> ICANN, overseen by the board. At least in principle and mostly in
> practice, they have to agree to its policies. If you want to have
> influence, you have to *part* of that structure....and have a contract or
> at least an MOU with ICANN too.
>
> Esther
>
> At 07:23 AM 12/20/2002, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >On 12:16 20/12/02, Alexander Svensson said:
> >>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
> >
> >Dear Alex,
> >I like it when the list become quiter and a serious dialog can develop.
> >Your point are the good point. I would comment your dialog with Richard
as
> >follows.
> >- we want a male plug into ICANN of our own shape to get some real
> >Internet power, but we have not decided it yet.
> >- ICANN has set-up a female plug and we are not happy with the design and
> >the way it relates to quite no Internet power supply.
> >
> >My understanding is that ICANN has no real Internet power and that if we
> >organize we may have more. The cost and the effort is not nil but it is
> >very low when we consider what is at stake. I do think that if instead of
> >debating a few of us REALLY meant to take over the control of their
> >Internet, it would not be that difficult.
> >
> >- ICANN is probably 10 full time people
> >- USG is big but Nancy Victory is not 24/24 dedicated to Internet and her
> >whole staff is probably mudded in bureaucracy a private commando would
not
> >have.
> >- the cost is probably no more than a few hours a week, 10 to 30 PCs (we
> >are talking of $1500/month equivalent)
> >- the vision of the system they have has no architecture, no plan, no
> >mutual agreement etc/ to work on such things would give a tremendous
lead.
> >
> >The real power is the number of users. You want an exemple? Take New.net.
> >What ICANN reproaches to New.net is to be commercial, closed and final,
ie
> >an alternative. Take dot-root: a test as per ICP-3, non-profit, non final
> >(if a project is a mistake it has a back-off built-in possibility), open
> >to all and calling for public reporting. I do think that we can develop
> >dot-root to test, advise, work together on an ICANN III we all may agree
> >and that might wear the name of ITU-ICANN.
> >
> >I do think we can do it. We only need to agree and cooperate. Today we
are
> >disbanded and with no real common practical objective. Let stop debating
> >as parrots and let unite those who want as a team, with a clear and final
> >aim "to set-up a users' real international and innovative network
system".
> >
> >jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de