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

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

David,

Though at this moment in time to restraint to make up my mind on how to
bets present my opinion and possible solutions to this dilemma to the
list, I feel that I should try to convey the element that sticks out pro
NO RALO;

There were AL directors, a policy, a vote and some semblance of
democracy albeit it a weird version of that in the "old" situation.

This was all taken away, despite advice by their own study committee and
loud voices in the audience and inside the board.

The process itself was at least lob-sided and definitely not one of
great democratic achievement.

Joining the RALO's now with no voice other then advisory in appointment
of an advisory board (very free translation) would maybe leave the
impression that one condones the process thus far and agrees with the
current structure.

I can certainly say that I hold that reasoning as a valid argument
against joining, though for joining would speak the adagio that one can
do far more from the inside then from the outside and one has to wonder
if the statue given by participating would not give more justification
for critique against the setup then when coming from outside, however
since ICANN decides who will be on the committee, and going over the
proposed list from Michelle, I must say that being on the outside seems
the far better place.

I do however at this moment in time myself hold the position that one
does not exclude the other, I am simply lookig for time to put a
foundation under that opinion that will withstand amongst others your
scrutiny.

Regards

Abel Wisman

===========================

Information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be
privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited
and may be unlawful.

Any attachment has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own
virus checker and procedures.

If you contact us by email we will store your name and address to
facilitate communications. 

=========================

Able Towers and Able Consultancy are tradenames of Moordata Ltd.

2 Brickett Close 
Ruislip
Middlesex
HA4 7YE 
UK
+44 1895 635413
+44 77 55255598

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org

best co-lo rates in the UK


> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com] 
> Sent: 16 January 2003 18:27
> To: espresso@e-scape.net
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] To RALO or not to RALO (was: 
> Some Simple Facts...)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:55:49 -0500, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> 
> >If we let ICANN can keep us inside the tent, we'll be part 
> of ICANN and 
> >in no position to criticize since de facto we'll have agreed 
> to its way 
> >of doing things.
> 
> I disagree with the reasoning and conclusion.  There are 
> reasons not to join the RALOs but this is not one of them 
> IMO.  The main reason not to join is whether by staying 
> outside we remove credibility from the structure set up by 
> ICANN.  Frankly a group with 15 active members is not going 
> to be missed by anyone but we can debate that further.
> 
> The point I want to make is joining a RALO in no way means we 
> can not criticise ICANN and the at large structure.  Just as 
> the cctlds were part of the DNSO for several years but were 
> very vocal in their criticisms.
> 
> By joining the RALOs we get the chance to mingle with other 
> at large groups and persuade them to our point of view.
> 
> >If we're outside the tent, we can speak freely whenever we like and 
> >however we like, and (assuming we do form a viable organization with 
> >enough Internet users as members) we can probably achieve 
> more than we 
> >could as an entity subservient to the ICANN Board and 
> therefore subject 
> >to muzzling or summary elimination.
> 
> I ask for the factual basis for your assertion that joining 
> the RALOs makes us in any way subservient to the Board?  This 
> is quite simply not true.  The Board will have no power to do 
> anything to us by joining a RALO and if they tried to impose 
> conditions of non criticism then we would simply leave or not 
> join in the first place (and the Board would gain even more critics).
> 
> >In short, I don't think letting ourselves be co-opted as a "company 
> >union" would be either effective or fair to the constituency 
> we claim 
> >we want to serve.
> 
> Sigh - a company union is controlled by the organisation.  
> Joining a RALO does no such thing.  As far as I can tell all 
> that happens is we gain access to dialog with other at large 
> groups and we gain some votes to try and get people on the 
> nominating committee who will vote for board members who 
> share our beliefs.
> 
> Again I ask if anyone can point to a singl;e provision that 
> means joining a RALO prevents from us continuing to be as 
> critical as ICANN as we want to be?
> 
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: david@farrar.com
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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