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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all stakeholders/users and At-Large members,

Bruce Young wrote:

> 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!

  This is of course utter nonsense.  Good, responsive and effective
leadership of a membership based organization such as ICANNATLARGE.ORG
follows the members lead, not lead it's members...

> 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!

  This is not accurate Bruce.  Most of the proposals that the Panel have
put forward, had little or no consensus from the members or were
even crafted around comments and concerns expressed by the
members.  In addition, consensus can only be known if it can be
measured.

>
> 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 is one way of accomplishing determining consensus and moving
forward.  I called for this long ago, offered to help set up a voting
system by which this could get underway.  The Panel just sat on it.

>  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!

  Been done.

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

  If we can hit up the ccTLD's registrants and those sites customers, than
yes this is a great idea.  It has been suggested before however...

>
>
> 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.

  The RALO of ICANN is a canard...

>
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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