Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

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

Excellent! I entirely agree with Ron's analysis. This is exactly how I see
it. I am happy to envisage two approaches, and I am happy to keep a foot in
both camps, but I personally think that many of our membership want to
remain clearly independent of ICANN, to create some clear space from it, and
I think (as Wolfgang has suggested in his own analysis) that it's time to
ballot the entire membership on a range of questions. However, to avoid
"rigged" questions, I think advocates of an ICANN-RALO based org should
phrase THEIR proposals in a form the members can vote yes or no to; and I
think advocates of an independent At Large mobilising and organising outside
ICANN's structures should phrase THEIR proposals in a form members can vote
yes or no to.

If (and it is my concern) a majority of the panel tries to force voting
choices which seem unbalanced, then I advocate the use of Joop's Poll Booth
concept as a valuable check and balance, allowing ordinary members to phrase
questions and not just the panel... indeed I see no real reason why we can't
proceed with that approach almost right away... by all means let all members
of our organisation express their views and ask their questions.

The At Large is a multiplicity. Diversifying is not something to be feared.
Let people choose what orgs they want to support... as Ron says... we may
choose to keep supporting several. But clearly, if some people want a
strategy that builds on ICANN's RALOs and some people want a strategy that
tries to supercede those RALOs and claim an independent identity free of
ICANN, then TWO organisations is no big problem, and some people could
support both approaches to help either or both prosper.

What good sense, Ron.

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: Norbert Klein <nhklein@gmx.net>
Cc: atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation


> Dear Norbert, Vittorio, et al:
>
>     Is it unreasonable that individuals, who really care about at-large
> influence over governance of the Internet, could be a member of two
> organizations?  Is it not reasonable to want to help influence from both
(or
> many) points of view?  Is it not possible for both sides to be right?
>
>     Surely, there are strong reasons to attempt to guide the process from
> the inside. Just as there are strong reasons to believe that it may not be
> possible under existing circumstances.  Both lines of logic are valid.
> Surely it is logical to have the issue addressed from both viewpoints?
>
>     It is NOT reasonable however, to expect a single organization to take
on
> both tasks simultaneously. But, there is no reason for an organization to
> charge its membership with the task of deciding one way or the other. Let
us
> keep our membership intact to the extent that we may, and simply do the
job
> that we were formed to do.  ICANN has taken the initiative of addressing
the
> at-large issue from the inside and many users will join organizations that
> will become a part of the regional system.  Other users will not believe
> that the ICANN initiative will provide any real value to end-users and
will
> look to an independent organization to represent them.  The 1000 or so
> members of this group have demonstrated repeatedly that they are among
this
> latter group.  Let this group represent them and let those who wish to
join
> the ICANN inspired group, go the way of ICANN.  I am sure there are many
> (most?) who will hedge their bets by working actively in both camps.
There
> will be many more who will not be so active, but who will want to
> participate in both organizations and watch where the chips are falling.
>
>     The goal, surely, is to actively support at-large influence in the
> governance of the Internet.  An independent at-large is necessary, in my
> opinion, to prevent the monopolistic nature of an ICANN controlled
at-large
> representation.  This does not, however, invalidate the attempt by ICANN
to
> develop a structured at-large community of advisors.  The two could, and
> should, co-exist.  Time alone will show which method of representation
will
> prevail.  It is my belief that the independent group will, at the very
> least, force the ICANN structured group to remain honest.
>
>     Let those of us who wish to do so, support the ALAC and the RALOs.
Let
> icann-at-large be the organization that independently represents those of
us
> who are concerned about limitations to our sphere of influence in a
top-down
> structure.
>
> Ron Sherwood
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norbert Klein" <nhklein@gmx.net>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Cc: <vb@bertola.eu.org>; <bkleinwaechter@web.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation
>
>
> > > Dear Vittorio,
> > >
> > > as a former panel member, who has followed the discussion and was
rather
> > > silent the the last weeks, I would support a quick and simple
procedure
> to
> > > ask the 1000+ registered icanatlarge.com/.org members, whether they
have
> > > joined the emerging organisation to work within or outside ICANN. Time
> is
> > > more than ripe to make a clear distinction. As far as I see the
process
> > > there will be unavoidable a split: there are a number of
> > > people/unsers/members who want to work within ICANN and the emerging
> > > RALOs.
> >
> > Dear Vittorio,
> >
> > I want to join with Wolfgang and others in the suggestion to come to a
> vote
> > which opens two clear alternatives. But I have still difficulties with
the
> > wording which would be most appropriate for such a vote.
> >
> > Wolfgang says: "whether they have joined the emerging organisation to
work
> > within or outside ICANN" - but that was not an issue when the majority
of
> the
> > people joined: not "within" or "outside," but in order to maintain an
> > important element in ICANN: the At-Large-Membership, which was in danger

> to be
> > pushed aside - and all know what happened since.
> >
> > I have been silent for a long time because I never could understand what
> an
> > At-Large organizatikon would be which would not work TOWARDS IMPROVING
THE
> > ORGANIZATION HANDLING ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, and a lot of other
> things
> > which are handled, at present, by ICANN.
> >
> > Maybe I did not read well what was said, but I never got a clear
> > understanding what those of the present membership who want to work not
> only "outside"
> > of ICANN but who want to work for a kind of world body doing the task
> ICANN is
> > doing (for better or for worse) really envision to do, and to achieve.
> >
> > So I got the impression that the alternative for the question in the
> ballot
> > would be something like:
> >
> > "to continue to work for the democratic control of ICANN"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "to create an independent world wide organizations of Internet users so
> that
> > they can raise their common concerns through this new organization."
> >
> > I don't think the alternative is "under" ICANN or not - but whether the
> work
> > is aiming at ICANN or not. I do not see - for me - much value at this
> point
> > of time in not focussing on ICANN. What ICANN decises, has quite an
impact
> on
> > all of us communicating, and I think there is a lot to fight out on this
> > field.
> >
> > I have been busy - in addition to my normal day-to-day work - in
> > Asia-Pacific wide concens in the NGO and civil society worlds about the
> preparatory
> > process for the World Summit on the Information Society, and I now got
> also a
> > fellowship support to participate in the Tokyo meetings, for the NGO
part
> > starting on the 11th, and for the joint governments - private sector -
> civil
> > society conference from 13 to 15th.
> >
> > Also here it is obvious that it is so difficult for some government
> > participants to accept the full participation of civil society (which
was
> envisaged
> > in the original UN General Assembly decisions).  Again some asked:
should
> we
> > rather walk out? A large number of NGOs in Asia have instead tried to
> > elaborate our conccerns, to write them down, and to try to get them into
> the
> > discussions at Tokyo.
> >
> > Thanks for all who have volunteered to put time and energy into the
> At-Large
> > development, and through the present struggle.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> > --
> > Norbert Klein
> > Open Forum of Cambodia
> > Phnom Penh/Cambodia
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>


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