Re: [atlarge-discuss] top down or bottom up?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Please forgive the delay, everyone -- I've been ill and overworked
and simply couldn't keep up with the revived discussions. I've
written replies to several messages and then held back on sending
them because later correspondence either said what I wanted to
or rendered it superfluous. I'll try to keep this one brief and
cogent.

At 22:01 -0400 2003/01/08, Ron Sherwood wrote:
>Forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but the debate seems to
>be
>over which of the two subject line approaches (top down or bottom up)
>is >the most likely to succeed.

Actually, I think it is a little more complex than that. I see
two intertwined issues:

1) a) do we work within ICANN's vision and try to mitigate its
   anti-democratic approach while conforming to its preferred
   (openly anti-democratic) structure, or
   b) do we set up a member-based organization for all Internet
   users which can engage with ICANN or other bodies without
   necessarily conforming to ICANN's preferred structure

and

2) a) do we want our organization (however structured) to
   focus on reporting to/meeting with/lobbying against ICANN, or
   b) do we want our organization to undertake a broader mission
   which might include (for example) asking that other bodies
   involved in aspects of Internet governance, communications
   rights, etc. take the needs of the worldwide Internet-user
   community into account in their deliberations and regard
   us as an umbrella-group speaking for that community --
   that mission being approximately "whatever a membership of
   interested Internet users decide is appropriate" and the
   organization structured so as to allow the user community
   itself to make those decisions.

>    Surely, if the ICANN top-down ALOC / RALO method of providing end
>user
>participation is successful, then it will embrace and include
>participation
>by any organization that is suitably organized from the bottom up.
>That >must include the icann-at-large membership who are skeptical of
>abandoning >their separatist beliefs.

I think Ron makes a valid point about ICANN having to recognize and
include user participation, even from a "bottom up" organization
[N.B. we're not one yet!] but I think there is more involved here
than "separatist beliefs".

The arguments we hear from ICANN, the WSIS people, etc. are not
"Internet users and civil society have no right to ask for
representation" but things like "they're not as capable as we
are of making sensible decisions" and "it's too time-consuming,
complicated and expensive to allow their representatives
to have a voice (let alone a vote!) in the deliberations".

I don't believe ICANN really gives a damn whether the "at large"
Internet users get to elect their representatives or decide on
their mandates. Its concern is to
a) ensure that those representatives, however elected or
appointed, will stick to ICANN's own agenda and modus operandi
b) ensure that those representatives are permanently outnumbered
by the industry insiders who treat the Internet like their
personal passport to fame, fortune, and political power
c) ensure that there is just enough lip-service paid to democracy
that the U.S. Department of Commerce will believe efforts are
being made and ICANN's powers should be renewed and extended
d) ensure that whoever has to carry the expense and do the work
of organizing the Internet-user constituency, that won't be
something they have to pay for. (I strongly suspect that the
main reason ICANN decided to shut down its At Large operation
--which, after all, fulfilled items a-c-- was because the
process was labour-intensive and expensive and they'd rather use
their time and money for something other than democracy.)

>    If, on the other hand, the ICANN / ALOC / RALO method fails due to
>an
>unwillingness to accept a bottom-up process, then the separatist
>icann-at-large group should be in a position to simply move around
>ICANN or
>to fill the void that they have left.

The problem I see with this is that although ICANN is obviously
more comfortable with hand-picked appointees than with elected
representatives of Internet users,

1) the method would still yield the same internal and external
pressure on ICANN to democratize itself, in which case the
ICANN Board would have to discredit it (as with all previous
forms of representation) and try another tack to get the answer
that their "private club" approach is just fine;

2) the same arguments could be levelled that this organization
was actually representing only a very small fraction of the
much-larger constituency of Internet users (even 100,000+ was
considered "unrepresentative", you may recall) but this time
the attack would be against our "civil society" endeavour
rather than something one could counter by pointing out that
ICANN itself was responsible for limiting the numbers who
could register to vote

and that whatever the grounds for declaring the initiative a
failure, the results would be the discrediting of the people
involved in this organization and the disillusionment of
enough of the more-motivated Internet user community, such
that any further efforts at organizing would be even harder
than this one! That is, if we work for a year or two to make
ALOC/RALO function and it can be attacked on any grounds at
all, our organization couldn't "just move around ICANN" and
carry on since it would be too closely tied to ICANN and
too obviously a failed effort to enlist further support or
obtain credibility with any other bodies.

>    The most likely scenario is that the two will merge
>eventually, and that the ICANN that we know will become the
>ICANN that we want... simply BECAUSE icann-at-large became a
>powerful bottom-up organization and was able to
>carry the will of the end user.

It may be that I'm old and cynical compared to Ron but I
honestly doubt that this organization can get off the ground
by trying to serve two masters or that ICANN will ever
become what we want if we do.

The position of strength is that of an independent organization
structured as a democracy for Internet users themselves and
exerting pressure on their behalf on ICANN and other bodies so
as to democratize their decision-making.

The position of an organization committed to working within
ICANN's unilaterally-declared rules and without reference to
all other issues pertaining to the rights of individual
Internet users is much weaker, and I doubt it can ever
interest enough Internet users to make any difference at all.

>    I believe that the wisest users will be those that
>participate in both organizations and carefully judge their
>policies and receptiveness to user input.

Forgive me, but if we are really concerned about representation
for all Internet users, it doesn't make sense to frame our
potential membership in terms of cherry-picking the "wisest"
who have the time and energy to participate fully in two or
more organizations. To me, "all" means ALL -- trying to set
up something which gives every Internet user a vote in
determining what will be said and done on behalf of all.

To me, that means setting aside the "you need to know all
about ICANN and the DNSO and the ISOC and ... before you
are worthy" and the "only people with a strong knowledge of
all the technical underpinnings and a financial interest
can understand" arguments. What can work -- in my opinion,
the ONLY thing that can work -- is an organization geared
from the ground up to informing all Internet users in terms
they understand, listening to their questions and complaints,
and offering a venue in which their concerns are paramount
and the working method is to pull together and elect people
who will represent the concerns and opinions of the majority.

Naturally, anyone anywhere can put up a Web site claiming
to be whatever they like. However, how could we claim to
represent anyone if we can't even claim our own Panelists
have taken the pulse of the membership and are carrying
the membership's message to ICANN meetings??? And how could
we claim to be organizing regional organizations which will
have a voice within ICANN if we can't so much as organize
ourselves to represent our own current members???

I can say categorically that nobody in this group has the
authority to speak for the group at this point, and I am
completely uninterested in being part of a body-count
used to justify the personal opinions of whoever can afford to
fly to ICANN meetings and pretend to be our representatives.
Either we will become a viable voice for all Internet users
or we won't and, if not, there's no point to my hanging around
here when I could be spending my time doing something more
constructive than substantiating the myth that two dozen
people who can't even agree amongst themselves to put a
vital issue to a vote will eventually reform ICANN.

Sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



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