Re: [atlarge-discuss] To RALO or not to RALO (was: Some Simple Facts...)

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

Happy New Year, Thomas!

Comments below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; J-F C. (Jefsey)
Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] To RALO or not to RALO (was: Some Simple
Facts...)


> On 2003-01-10 23:19:16 -0000, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > We, the people, must be our own Gatekeepers.
>
> > We, the people, must develop our own structures and umbrellas.
>
> > We, the people of the world, must lay claim to the world's
> > internet, and demand a decisive role in its governance and
> > development - because it is our resource, NOT the resource of a
> > Californian quango, or its backers.
>
> I'm getting sick of hearing this kind of bullshit

Richard's reply: The suggestion that Internet Users should develop and run
their own At Large structure, independently of ICANN, is not (IMHO)
"bullshit". Of course, you may take a different view, but I believe it is a
serious suggestion worthy of serious comments instead of abstract abuse.
Hmmm, yes, and it's democratic...

> -- it's been the
> same kind of high-sounding, but empty rhetorics for years.  All
> you're achieving this way is to detract people from actual internet
> governance questions.

Richard's reply: Respectfully, Thomas, the development of an independent At
Large can take place at the same time as the involvement in actual internet
governance questions. The call for democratic representation of users in a
*decisive* role in internet governance is hardly "empty rhetoric", and I'm
sorry if ideals sometimes sound "high-sounding", but when something's wrong
you've sometimes got to speak out - and believe me, Icann's wrong!

>
> How about doing some work on hard issues instead of continuously
> demanding a role -- without having the faintest idea about what
> internet governance is all about?

Richard's reply: Are you saying that the At Large is ignorant, and therefore
disqualified from commenting on Icann and its failures? Thomas, I'll be
honest with you - I'm an outsider who hadn't even heard of ICANN two years
ago. I'm not ashamed of that. I'm just an ordinary internet user. When the
NewTLD process descended into fiasco I discovered how totally the system had
been abused, and experienced firsthand the way ICANN operated. I set out to
inform myself. I worked night after night to educate myself. I read as many
forums as I could. I looked up archives on Icann's origins. I accessed
Afilias's Sunrise registrations through possibly inappropriate scripts. I
downloaded their entire WHOIS. I analysed the data. I initiated a website
which, with Robert Connor's Domebase.com, helped publicise the nature and
extent of the abuse of Icann's processes. I contacted by e-mail, phone and
personal encounter many of the main players. I experienced first hand the
way ICANN allowed their processes to be abused without sanction of any kind.
I read the detail of the Icann-Registry and Registry-Registrar Agreements. I
forsaw (and warned) about the use of short lists to queue-jump in the .biz2B
and .info Landrush2 procedures. I chased up Signature Domains when they
applied for 9 prime names just for themselves and for nobody else. I got a
confession from them. I got a confession from Spy Productions. I got the
proved details of abuse of the Agreements by directors of Afilias, and by
registrars involved in their cartel. I repeatedly appealed for a response -
any kind of response - from Dan Halloran (but over 250 days later he's never
acknowledged my mail...). I'm not trying to say this is anything fantastic -
it's just one person among many perplexed and dismayed by ICANN and its
friends. Thomas, you say "How about doing some work?"... I really have tried
to work hard. Even up to last week, when I posted over 25 messages at
IcannWatch... it took me hours, but the NewTLDs are an area I have developed
some detailed knowledge on, and commonsense says you make your contribution
in the area you can contribute best, and most authoritatively.

Thomas, I believe that I am entitled to "work hard" on relevant issues like
these AND at the same time press the case for Internet Users to develop
their structure and voice independent of Icann.


  How about using the opportunities
> you have instead of proclaiming that they're not perfect, hence
> inacceptable -- without even trying to make use of them?

Thomas, your point here is fair : I acknowledge that some people will want
to try to work within Icann and its RALOs to make use of them. Personally,
I'm entitled to another viewpoint, and my personal cynicism towards Icann
(for which many people would say I have grounds) makes me reluctant
personally to engage in yet another process run which I believe they have
initiated to legitimise their Boardroom coup and to contain and control the
way the At Large develops.

The answers to all these problems does NOT necessarily lie INSIDE Icann,
Thomas... indeed, Icann may not even exist in two years time... but the
community of ordinary Internet Users certainly WILL.


>
> Of course, that takes more time than wasting everyone's ressources
> on discussing whether ICANN is good or bad.

Let me get this straight, Thomas : you think that we should not discuss
this? You think it is a waste of time to ask fundamental questions about
Icann? Well, THEY'D certainly agree, because they have been avoiding
accountability time and time again.


>
> icannatlarge{.com,.org} has a considerable membership.  That's the
> capital you should build upon.  Where's the message to ICANN (to the
> DoC, to the EU commission, ...) saying that, on behalf of the
> diverse membership of this organization, you have these and those
> demands on, say WHOIS policy?  On domain name deletion mechanisms?
> On transfers?  On procedures for adding new gTLDs?  On the UDRP? All
> I hear from icannatlarge{.com,.org} is an ear-deafening silence on
> actual issues.

As I say, I am a member of this organisation, and I have made detailed and
extensive observations on my area of relative expertise - to: the ICANN
Board; to ICANN staff; to Registries; to Registrars; to the DoC; to the
Congressional Committee; to Nancy Victory; to Fred Upton; to Chick Evans; to
the British Government; to the ITU; to the ICANN public forums; to
IcannWatch; to the GA list; to the Registry list; I've phoned, I've mailed,
I've travelled for face to face.

Jamie Love, another panel member, initiated the valuable "re-bid vote" on
the GA list you oversaw : Vittorio Bertola works tirelessly on a wide range
of issues of Internet governance : YJ Park is deeply committed to many
aspects of Governance. And so are many others (panelists and members) in our
organisation.

I accept the observation that we need to organise our voices much more. But
I think your suggestion that there's just a deafening silence is an
overstatement



>
> Just in case you don't get it: The kind of absurd discussions you
> guys are having are adding another nail to the at-large's coffin.

Democracy is sometimes frustrating and sometimes verbose, but at least we DO
have democracy. Icann does NOT. Therefore we can claim some small
legitimacy, some accountability, some mandate.

I think, Thomas, you are just frustrated, because I think you just want us
all to "move on", accept Icann's "reforms", and work from within their
"coup". I'm not saying that isn't the right course for some people (though I
doubt whether it will be productive, but that is opinion). I'm saying that
it is entirely legitimate - in the context of the elected At Large
expulsions, in the light of the abandoned ALSC, in the light of the stifled
GA, in the light of serious concerns and abuse of process - for some people
to advance the case for a wholly free and independent At Large / Users
Representation.

In the end, we live in a free world, and people will do as they please. My
immediate argument is that the membership of this evolving organisation
should be given the opportunity to determine for itself the mission, the
goals, and the program it should follow.

Democracy is not just "bullshit". Democracy is not just "high sounding empty
rhetoric". Democracy is not a "distraction from actual internet governance
questions" because it is THE key internet governance question. Democracy is
not a "waste" of people's time.

Your point about governance *substance* is fair enough, Thomas... it's
important.

But I feel we are engaged in a struggle for democratic accountability, which
is a principle ICANN has repeatedly sought to crush.

Have a good weekend, and good wishes

Richard Henderson


>
> Happy new year,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
>


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