Re: [atlarge-discuss] Constituency

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 14:00 -0500 2003/02/12, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>While I am not a member of icannatlarge, I have long supported efforts
>>geared toward the representation of individuals in the DNSO (now
>GNSO).  >There remain many that would support this Constituency
>initiative that are, >like me, not members of icannatlarge.  I would
>hope that you would >encourage such allies to colloborate in
>consensus-based decision-making on >this worthwhile project.

I'm confused. Logically, there are two possibilities:

1) ICANNATLARGE.ORG puts forward an application to become
   an ICANN constituency, in which case one would have to be a
   member of the organization to be part of the constituency.

2) Some group of individuals puts forward an application to
   become an ICANN constituency, and others (ICANNATLARGE.ORG
   members or not) join it if they want to, in which case
   the constituency has nothing to do with ICANNATLARGE.ORG.

I really don't see a third way by which ICANNATLARGE.ORG as a group
could participate in what is intended to be a constituency of
individual Internet users, or how its collective effort to create
such a constituency could be meaningful if it were to include
people who do not subscribe to its aims enough to want to be
members.

I'm not by any means ruling out collaboration between this
organization and others but unsure what you're driving at.
Sotiris evidently reads your message as meaning 2) above but
in that case it's a constituency to be requested *instead of*
our group so I don't see how our group could collaborate.

Meanwhile, Jefsey has presented an entirely different take
on the issue:
>5. all these projects shares a common need: to get access to the
>@large
>membership list. IMHO the management of that list should be the
>responsibility of the Panel as elected by that list. This way the
>panel
>would accept the "@large" character of an initiative in giving access
>to
>the list. The Members  would enlist knowing that (and may be chosing
>on
>which list they want/do not want to be). The Panel would maintain a
>very
>simple web site reporting on the Panel and linking the "@large
>endorsed"
>initiatives (with access or without access to the list). The Panelist
>would
>be used both as catalysts and arbitrators, with a vey low load making
>it
>manageable for them.
>
>The list management would include the management of an "@large ID" in
>some
>way to discuss, so we may trust each others.

I'm afraid the very last thing on the planet that ICANNATLARGE.ORG
should do is provide its membership list to all and sundry who
want to organize other kinds of constituencies for business users,
Internet businesses, etc. I believe anyone who wished to announce
they were organizing such a group could announce it on this list
or in the forum on Joop's site. I also believe these other groups,
which have nothing directly to do with organizing this one for
individual non-business constituents, should be prepared to do
their recruiting in more appropriate ways and should go ahead
and organize themselves as they please.

However, I think we can all agree that it is inappropriate for a
membership database to be released to others without the permission
of the people listed. People registered for this group without
giving that permission -- which was the reason given for not
informing all registered members that they could vote in our
poll -- so it's clearly not acceptable to share their addresses
with other organizations. We have already discussed the importance
of privacy and security of personal information. Spreading the
members' names around cavalierly would create the opposite of
trust.

Besides, my spam-load and viruses-to-delete mailbox have increased
steadily since I joined this list and I really don't want any more.
If people want to start other groups and share their membership
lists with the world, I for one will not be signing up there.

Regards,

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