Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI: [CNET] ICANN under Twomey to continue policy focus

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

Judyth and all fellow members,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 17:44 -0800 2003/03/23, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Judyth makes some very good points here in her rather long winded
> >and politically expedient comments/remarks below.  They should be
> >strongly and properly considered in good faith.
>
> Talk about praising with faint damns! ;-)
>
> >  However, with respects to the UN charter on human rights, which
> >is a now nearly worthless document as it is only occasionally
> >upheld by it's present members, and hasn't been universally or
> >even by a majority upheld for more than 13 years.
>
> I beg to differ, Jeff ... unless you would argue that the
> Ten Commandments are likewise worthless because so few people
> have kept them during the past 5000 years, or that the
> Gettysburg address should be thrown out because "government
> of the people, by the people, for the people" is a democratic
> ideal no actual nation has kept to 100%.

  The UN is not a nation.  The US is.  The old testament is not
a nation but a religious set of documents.  Hence your comparisons
pale to reality.

> The point of these
> documents isn't that they are universally upheld but that
> there is substantial agreement that they are ideals to work
> towards.

  Here we agree!  However this is much different that what you originally

stated above.  In addition I would add that the UN, now for all practical

purposes a "League of Nations" is powerless to enforce such notions.
And again has plainly shown such recently.

>
>
> >  Another rather odd but understandable inconceivable mix
> >in Judyth's comments as she attempted to apply to this
> >fledgling organization, is that clearly the fledgling organization
> >is not yet even a true organization, and that human rights
> >of any kind do not necessarily apply to organizations as they
> >have no legally defined citizens as nation states do.  Indeed
> >however some if not many of this fledgling organizations
> >members are stakeholders/users and as such have the right to
> >representation, as well as the responsibility.  We thus far
> >have failed terribly to take that responsibility seriously if
> >at all.  Until or unless we do, we effectively as a body of
> >stakeholders/users cannot assert the rights to which Judyth
> >is referring and be taken seriously.
>
> "Odd but understandable inconceivable mix" is one of your
> best lines so far, Jeff. I salute your talent for the absurd.

  Hardly absurd, Judyth.  Just fact.

>
>
> However, in a democracy, every individual is supposed to have
> the same rights as every other individual: the wording may
> vary from one nation or group to another but those rights
> generally do include things like "life, liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness", freedom of expression and association,
> etc. Indeed, rights and responsibilities go together: the
> right to personal freedom entails the responsibility to
> respect the same freedom of others; the right to vote entails
> a responsibility to consider the issues and cast one's ballot.

  Bingo!  I think you are beginning ot get it now!  >;)

>
>
> Not all organizations are democracies. Those that are -- and
> this would include most membership-based organizations -- may
> or may not have the defense of members' human rights as a
> primary goal, but they certainly aren't supposed to encourage
> the violation of those rights.

  Membership organizations are based in democratic principals
Judyth.  Hence your spin here would SEEM to indicate otherwise.
Frankly the contrary potential you are seemingly trying to draw
here, is simply not one that would include those basic democratic
principals, especially, of the members, by the members and for the
members,
or of the people, by the people, and for the people, where members=
people.

>
>
> This group is not yet an organization of any kind.

  Very true.  And as it is in formulation has had one
election, regardless of how skewed and poorly that
election was, has demonstrated that in this fledgling
organizations, democracy of the members, by the members
and for the members is part of what this forming organization
is.

> It's a
> voluntary gathering of equals from all over the world who
> share the hope that it will become an organization - and
> specifically an organization whose goal is the democratization
> of Internet governance. I really don't think that can happen
> if we are unwilling to democratize as well as organize
> ourselves.

  I agree with your conclusion.  However it is really not a matter
or whether we can, but one of whether we will...

>
>
> >  Therefore the "Regime" that needs changing or replacing is
> >indeed ICANN in this context, and this organization must
> >get it's act together to be able to cooperatively aid in
> >effecting that Regime change, or face relative obscurity.
>
> No dispute there. But I'd add that this group is now in
> the process of its own "regime change" insofar as we will
> soon be asked to nominate, and then vote for, some of our
> number to sit on a new Interim Panel. We members are
> hoping that the new Panel so elected will be able to help
> us move from "amorphous group" to "collaborative group"
> to "incorporated organization" and thence to a relevant
> role in defending the rights of individual Internet users,
> at least insofar as those rights are affected by ICANN
> and other bodies which play a role in Internet governance.

  Indeed we are attempting to move in the direction you indicate.
However presently we are stalled as to method...

>
>
> Whatever the (many) flaws in the current ICANN regime, at
> the moment the most pressing need is to develop our
> means of working together towards a common goal. If we
> ourselves are unwilling to deal with our rights and
> responsibilities as members of a voluntary association,
> I think obscurity would be preferable to the alternative.

  I could not agree with you more here.  Thankfully INEGroup
faced and solved this problem long ago...

>
>
> 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

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