[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...



A general response to this thread:

1.  Sotiris' call for "new elections" won't solve anything.  In fact, it
will only delay theings as the new people come up to speed.  The problem
isn't the current leadership, it's what I see is an unwillingness on the
part of certian members to allow them to lead!  Every substantive proposal
made in the last six months -- which were usually based on a concensus of
inputs made on this list -- has been vocally rejected for one reason or
another, usually by those other than the ones providing the original inputs!
We need to set up a process where we call for comments for a set period of
time, collate those comments into a proposal (or several proposals if
opinion is split), and submit them to the membership for approval.  This
requires active, *postitive* involvement on the part of the membership.  In
other words, tell us what you want, not just what you don't like!

2.  I like David Farrar's idea to hit up registriers, registrars and ccTLDs
for funding!

3.  I don't disagree with Richard and others that ICANN's regional At Large
structure is wrong, and a (in my opinion intentional!) poor fit for our
organization.  And even thought I continue to urge we cooperate with it for
appearances sake, I also see no hope of anything substantive coming out of
the RALO process.  However, ICANN's RALO process should not be confused with
calls by Jefsey and Richard for local and/or regional At Large outreach
activities.  One of the most effective ways we can build our membership is
by current members working locally to spread the At Large message: attending
meetings of existing interest groups, calling meetings of our own, engaging
the local press, etc.  Such activities will necessitate, as a minimum, a
loose local organization to coordinate them.  This local organization
needn't detract from the national group.  Rather, it can extend the reach of
our message into the locality!  If we're to be truely bottom-up, these local
groups are the bottom!  But as Richard points out, for these local groups to
be effective, they need to be a subsidiary of the global organization.  The
two feed off each other.

4. I agree with Richard and others that we need to get our mission statement
behind us.  That more than anything will end many of the arguments: at least
we will all know what our organization stands for.  In November I made an
attempt to collate all the statements people had submitted up to that time,
and submitted it for comment.  It went nowhere.  I don't have it at hand
(I'm writing this at work and the file is on my home PC!), but I can repost
it if people want.  Regardless, we need to come to a decision *soon* on a
mission statement, and I've been pressing for this, and for bylaws, for
months in the Panel list.  And will continue to do so until we have them in
hand!

5. Commenting about the wider user advocacy role some of us (me included!)
are advocating, David makes a comment that I'm sure others have heard here
before: "In terms of this organisation I do believe there should a fairly
narrow goal of increasing accountability of ICANN and the reasons for that
is because there are plenty of other organisations already set up to do
these other things."  In fact, David, there *are* no other organizations set
up in the Internet communuity to defend the *user* point of view.  To limit
this organization's effectiveness  by irretreivably tieing it to an ICANN
organization that is ultimately doomed to failure, is to doom our group to
failure as well.  It also artificially restricts our conversations, limiting
us to only those subjects ICANN wishes to discuss.  Our voice and our
mandate should be broader than that.  How much broader than that is a
subject for the membership to delineate.

6. As Stephen Waters so succinctly points out, "Basically, we have less than
one year to get our act together if we want to be prepared for the situation
of DoC dumping ICANN and the world needing outside influence/input."  We
have an opportuntity to be a strong outside voice if we can get past our
side arguments and agree that, if we do our jobs rights, any mission
statement, bylaws, policies processes, etc. that come out of this group are
not going to totally satisfy everyone.  That's how concensus works: we
compromise to agree.  I see little compromise and agreement here at this
point.  We all need to do a better job of not automatically rejecting ideas
because they don't *exactly* match our own, and move toward the center.  And
we have one year to get it done!

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!




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