[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Dear Walter
Dear Walter,
Take the second step.
>Judyth Mermelstein's query's raises the question by Polling: 'Does
Collective Bargaining Make Sense?', and, 'In what way Does Collective
Bargaining Make Sense to You?'
The importance of this debate is obvious, to discern the manner of which
we are to proceed/create a voice under the Icannatlarge flag.
If we are to align under the Icann proviso;
Regional-At-Large-Organization (RALO) then what provides us with the
means to Collectively Bargain with Icann? Particularly in the instance
when 1 or more of the 5 Regional areas choose to be in opposition to the
remaining Regional areas, splintering the RALO.
What is Icann's plan to deal with the Regions? One-on-One, Icann-to-RALO
Block.
How will the RALO represent/bargain the regional interest? Five separate
boards?, One Board - 5 Representative Board Members, One Board to
represent a majority of the RALO interest.
The RALO concept does not work for me, because it has not clearly
demonstrated how: Regional and Micro Regional disputes will be mediated.
The Umbrella (Jefsey's system)approch makes it clear how Collective
Bargaining will be provided by a
co-op/syndicate/fraternity/collective/union of User-Groups.
Icann has only said it supports a RALO system, it has not said how the
system would operate. I am in the mind that Icann said so just to please
the DoC.
So it comes down to this: 'In what way does Collective Bargaining Make
Sense to You?'
If you feel that a RALO will better help you bargain with Icann, and
that "Bargain" will address your opinions most often, then RALO.
If you feel that the Umbrella approach will better help you bargain with
Icann, and that "Bargain" will address your opinions most often, then
Umbrella.
For me, the ecology, consumer demands, and customer service dictate what
direction suite me, Bottom-up.
James Khan
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Ron Sherwood; Walter Schmidt; DPF
Cc: The AtLarge Panel Eleven -- Bruce (PM) Young; Edmundo (PM) Valenti;
Hans (PCh) Klein; James (PM) Love; J-F C. (Jefsey) (PM) Morfin; Michael
(PM) Geist; Satyajit (PM) Gupta; Vittorio (PM) Bertola; Vivek (PM)
Durai; YJ (PM) Park; Atlarge Discuss List
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes
about to be called
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de