Re: [atlarge-discuss] A Different Approach

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:32:22 +1300, Joop Teernstra
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:

>At 05:43 p.m. 15/02/2003, DPF wrote:
>>For many years a lot of people have worked hard to have a mechanism
>>where individual internet users can have input into ICANN.  But both
>>the IDNO and now icannatlarge.org have ended in failure.  IDNO spent
>>several years trying to get things to happen but died and this
>>organisation in a year has failed to even agree on the most basic
>>things and has now lost almost every panelist.
>
>The IDNO is not really dead and still has a structure and a website here: 
>www.democracy.org.nz

It is talks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and
quacks like a duck it tends to be a duck.  So if an organisation has
no domain name, no members, no activity and no plan to do anything at
all, well that is dead in my books.  If someone wants to try and
re-establish it good on them - I certainly won't try and block it.

>Somebody has to re-boot it again. It has the advantage of an existing set 
>of Bylaws that stipulate a process of accountability and voting. These 
>Bylaws can be refined and flaws and omissions can be fixed. It can be tuned 
>for the new ICANN situation and the new GNSO. Better than starting with 
>nothing.

I disagree 1000%.  I think the history of the IDNO would make such a
task an impossibility.  I tried for some months and years to help the
IDNO make progress and have no desire to try an approach that has
already failed multiple times.  As I said if others want to try -
please go for it and if at the end of the day there may be
alternatives for registrants to choose from, then that is no bad
thing.

>Neither has icannatlarge ended.

Not yet but it has almost died.  I'll stay here and try and be a
positive contributor but I'm not going to sit back and wait for a
nirvana which may never come.

>What icannatlarge is about is not the same as demanding representation of 
>Individual Domain Name Holders within the new GNSO.

I agree.  Both have a similar philosophy - that individuals who are
not affiliated to registries, registrars, businesses etc should have a
say in ICANN.  But they are aiming for different things - they are
complementary, not competing.

>ICANN has rebuffed that petition before with the argument that the 
>Individuals would get their representation through At Large directors and 
>had an ALSC tell us that At Large membership would be restricted to Domain 
>Name Holders.

I think there is a very clear case to be made that individual
registrants should have a constituency within the GNSO and in fact
even some of the ERC documents have alluded to this.  I hope a very
convincing case can be made to demonstrate not just in principle, but
in practice, that such a constituency is worth supporting.

>If 15 of our best (integrity, knowledgeability) people would choose to 
>spend their energy on a GNSO focused petition, could that not in effect 
>kill the icannatlarge user representation effort and leave that field to 
>the ALOC? 

You are suggesting that individuals should not choose where to spend
their energy.  I think people are capable of making rational choices.
And as I said I certainly still intend to be an active participant in
icannatlarge.org.

>If icannatlarge becomes ALOC and "succeeds" with ICANN, would 
>there be *any* chance for an independent "new-IDNO" to be let into the cosy 
>GNSO???

Of course - the two are different things.  But I have to say
icannatlarge.org is a long way of being seen as capable of succeeding
at anything.

>It is all very well to be complementary, and I agree with the goal, but can 
>this group give up  that many active people in exchange for a very likely 
>"NO, go away" at the end of the GNSO tunnel?

Why says all the people will come from this group, plus as I have
already said it is not for this group to allow or disallow people to
work on other things.  If people think my idea is a load of crock with
no chance of succeeding then they are not going to help out.  If they
think it is a viable plan then they might.

>David , one more thing, I agree (obviously, since I have tried to walk the 
>same path before and leart my l;essons) with much that you say about 
>working effectively, but why are you asking people to contact you privately?

I haven't.  I have asked people to contact me.  They can do that
however they want - by e-mail, through this mailing list, through the
GA list, through comments on icannwatch, by phoning me, by meeting
with me - however they want.  

>Why not a public show of hands, or a public listing on the web, so that 
>everyone can determine for him/herself  with whom  (s)he wants to be 
>associated.

That will become clear in a few days - I certainly intend that the
mailing list where most (but not all) activity will occur will be
publicly archived.  

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