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

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 08:30 -0500 2003/01/15, Walter Schmidt wrote:
>...
>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.

Forgive me, Walter, but I think you may be including Richard and
myself in the above, in which case you have misunderstood what we've
been saying.

What we have been saying (for many moons, at that) is that in
order to represent the whole "at large" community of Internet
users, we must:
a) be willing to ask Internet users on an ongoing basis
   what their needs and opinions are so as to make this
   organization represent them accurately;
b) form an organization with its own constitution, Board,
   electoral process, etc. so that its mission of providing
   such representation can be carried out democratically in
   accordance with the expressed wishes of the members;
c) be flexible enough to make effective representations to
   ICANN (although not necessarily *only* to ICANN unless
   the membership so decides) within real mandates from
   the Internet-user community rather than by mouthing off
   our own personal opinions *as if* they were mandated;
d) be smart and knowledgeable enough to communicate with
   the Internet-user community on governance issues in
   language(s) they can understand so that they can express
   informed opinions and we can gather in enough Internet
   users for the organization to form a real constituency
   rather than a minority pressure group with its own
   agenda disconnected from the "world at large".

The U.S. government may operate on a two-party system where
presidential candidates represent two (theoretically) different
parties and voters are expected to fall in line with one
party or the other, but that's not what the Declaration of
Independence or the U.S. Constitution said -- it's just what
has happened in practice over a long period of corruption of
the Founding Fathers' ideals. It's certainly not the model
for a grassroots constituency of Internet users, and I'm
doubtful that it will work very well if we follow Esther
Dyson's suggestion and set this organization up like a
mini-USA.

Certainly, there have been plenty of opinions posted suggesting
other ways of operating are possible, and even preferable, if
one is trying to found an organization which can represent not
only Americans but also Internet users from many different
nations and cultures. For one thing, many of us come from
places where there are multiple parties, each arising to
articulate the opinions of a certain portion of the electorate.

For another, some of us believe strongly that an organization
which demands that the members conform to the policies of
the prospective leaders is less of a democracy than one where
the members themselves tell their representatives to carry
out their wishes. To us, at least, pre-selecting the less
democratic option is a poor approach to persuading ICANN or
anyone else that the organization is representative of
anyone but those who want to run for office.

As for myself, I don't belong to *any* party with respect to
ICANN. I signed up as a member of a group which wanted to
reinstate and even improve democratic representation for
all Internet users. There is more than one way to skin
that particular cat ... but setting up a top-down organization
with two warring factions and no interest in representing
the full spectrum of Internet users' opinions isn't the one
I'd choose myself.

Keep in mind that North Americans are just a small portion of
the whole world and that, just as ICANN will eventually be
transformed into or replaced by a real international
organization, this organization must be prepared to welcome
Internet users from everywhere and with a wide range of
different beliefs and concerns. If the organization wants
to call itself the voice of Internet users and does not
want to be dismissed as unrepresentative or irrelevant, it
should be prepared for the fact that two dozen people who
post on a list don't necessarily represent 1000+ members,
let alone 600 million Internet users.

My two cents again,

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