Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes about to be called

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

Exactly!

The RALOs are top-down, and attempt to structure the world At Large movement
within ICANN's (clearly non-democratic) organisation (which is preposterous
because the Internet Users are NOT simply limited to an ICANN agenda).

The heart of the At Large case lies in democratic representation of ordinary
internet users, and a "bottom-up" approach to "the whole world's internet".
This grass-roots agenda should not be structured an "contained" within
ICANN, it should challenge ICANN's demonstrated contempt for the At Large,
and it should be based on "bottom up" democratic processes (nne of which
have been proposed by ICANN and its RALOs.

What we need is a coalition, under an independent umbrella banner/agenda, to
identify the independence of the At Large from ICANN, and distinguish OUR
methods and structures from THEIR "top-down" authoritarianism.

One things for sure... these two agendas are in opposition to one another
and - while I respect the good intent of those who want to carry on
involvement inside Icann to keep a User voice there - I believe we need an
organisation/network (either this one or another one) which will set out to
build a structure which is truly in line with the democratic bottom-up
principles of an At Large separate from ICANN (but vociferous in its demands
and critique of ICANN's agenda).

I think your analysis is absolutely correct, Ron.

And I think we are obliged by our own ideals to put this to the membership.

Then the people who wish to pursue either agenda will know where this
organisation stands, and they can go ahead and pursue their goals
whole-heartedly with others who share their vision.

And yes, Walt, much of the vision of either group may still be motivated by
similar hopes regarding outcome. There can be sharing and support. But the
question: "To RALO or not to RALO" cannot be avoided.

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>; DPF <david@farrar.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<Wg-bylaws@icann-at-large.org>; The AtLarge Panel Eleven -- Bruce (PM) Young
<bruce@barelyadequate.info>; Edmundo (PM) Valenti <emv@southtech.com.ar>;
Hans (PCh) Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>; James (PM) Love
<james.love@cptech.org>; J-F C. (Jefsey) (PM) Morfin
<jefsey@club-internet.fr>; Michael (PM) Geist <mgeist@uottawa.ca>; Satyajit
(PM) Gupta <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>; Vittorio (PM) Bertola
<vb@vitaminic.net>; Vivek (PM) Durai <vivek@vivekdurai.com>; YJ (PM) Park
<yjpark@myepark.com>; Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes
about to be called


> Good morning, Walter:
>
>     I can understand your frustration but I believe it is rooted in the
> total failure of our attempt to be all things to all people.  The decision
> to stay within the ICANN structure (top-down) or to endeavor to represent
> the grass roots (bottom-up) is so fundamental that we must make a choice.
> There is no reason why the membership cannot participate in one or the
other
> or both of two separate organizations with these opposing views.  Nor is
> there any reason why two organizations cannot coordinate their goals and
> work closely together... But, I cannot see any way that we can
realistically
> accommodate the wishes of these two diametrically opposed constituencies,
> and still democratically vote on anything.  Especially since the ICANN
based
> group is specifically in favor of a top-down structure (RALOs) and
> specifically opposed to any purely democratic grass roots initiative that
> does not fit within this framework.
>
> Ron Sherwood
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Schmidt" <walts@dorsai.org>
> To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
> Cc: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
> <Wg-bylaws@icann-at-large.org>; "The AtLarge Panel Eleven -- Bruce (PM)
> Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; "Edmundo (PM) Valenti"
> <emv@southtech.com.ar>; "Hans (PCh) Klein"
> <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>; "James (PM) Love"
> <james.love@cptech.org>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) (PM) Morfin"
> <jefsey@club-internet.fr>; "Michael (PM) Geist" <mgeist@uottawa.ca>;
> "Satyajit (PM) Gupta" <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>; "Vittorio (PM)
Bertola"
> <vb@vitaminic.net>; "Vivek (PM) Durai" <vivek@vivekdurai.com>; "YJ (PM)
> Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>; "Atlarge Discuss List"
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes
> about to be called
>
>
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, DPF wrote:
> >
> > > While I am keen to make progress I agree with Richard that the
> > > membership should vote on this fundamental issue firstly as it will
> > > affect most other things.
> > >
> > > I think the key decision is whether or not to join ICANN's ALSO
> > > through the RALOs or stay totally outside as a pressure group etc.
> > >
> >
> >    ...I tire of this - I did not bother to streamline the addressees
> >
> > One last time - trying one last analogy...
> >
> > Let's say we wanted to politically represent the USA. There is no way in
> > heck that we would attempt to do so with just ONE political party.
> >
> > Now, we are suggesting we will represent all (of the world's) atlarge
> > internet users - and in doing so we are trying to PICK ONE POINT OF VIEW
> > and we seem to expect that to work.
> >
> > NO WAY!!!!
> >
> > As example - there will those of us who believe we should join ICANN's
> > ALSO through the RALOs, and there will be those of us who believe we
> > should stay totally outside as a pressure group etc.
> >
> > WE MUST ACCOMMODATE ALL POINTS OF VIEW, or in reality we will never
> > represent the ATLARGE.
> >
> > So what do we do - we develop a mission statement that is all
inclusive -
> > and we've done that already several times over - we write bylaws to be
all
> > inclusive - and we move forward.
> >
> > And, if YOU feel so strongly about a particular issue that being on our
> > pro or con issue committee is not enough - then you can form your own
> > organization that is comprised only of the PROs or the CONs.
> >
> > Do we want to represent the ATLARGE we all its diversities, or do we
want
> > to represent the atlarge who only think a certain way...
> >
> > I am of the mind that the more outspoken of us really do not want us to
> > represent ALL the ATLARGE - just those of a singular opinion...
> >
> > And therein is the rub - and that is a pity. Instead of asking what the
> > majority of us want - we should be asking who will Chair and join the
PROs
> > and who will Chair and join the CONs...and thereby provide
representation
> > of us all.
> >
> >
> >  --- REgards, walts@dorsai.org Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA  Blue(.) ---
> >  - -              Online since CompuServe's MicroNET           ^  ---
> >  - -        Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition       - -
> >  ---                Associate Expert - Expert Zone                ---
> >  - -        http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/        ---
> >  - - 52 Ken          http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/         Sun 57 - -
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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