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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI: Anonymity, identity and authority



At 20:43 -0400 2003/04/30, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>Perhaps this will help to explain why I respectfully
>>disagree with my fellow-Canadian, Sotiris, who seems
>>to believe only those willing to pay $100 to have their
>>identity notarized should be eligible to join a group
>>protesting the lack of democracy and openness within
>>ICANN.
>>
>Poppycock!   I stated no such thing.

Then I'm sorry I've misunderstood you, Sotiris. But it
seemed to me that you were talking about eligibility
for membership, not just providing proof of identity
in order to vote, and my message was primarily that
(as I've said before) while it would be good to ask
prospective members to provide more information about
themselves, I think it's considerably less good to
take a confrontational attitude to the existing
membership of this group.

If you start from the assumption that the identity of
everyone on the current list must be challenged and
proved before the group can even elect an Interim
Panel to oversee the process of developing some viable
rules for the organization, you are in effect saying
"you are all guilty until you prove yourselves innocent
to my satisfaction" and that is no way to bring people
together.

>>Therefore, I find the idea repellent that a group like this
>>might take the position that we are all guilty until we can
>>prove our innocence -- especially at our own expense, and
>>to the satisfaction of a company which operates for its own
>>benefit rather than any legitimate authority over us.
>>
>Legitimacy is a two-edged sword, Judyth.  If this organization cannot
>vouchsafe and adequately verify the uniqueness and identity of our
>membership, then ICANN is free to continue ignoring us in favour of
>groups like ISOC etc., which can and do verify their membership.

But Sotiris, this group is far from being ready to persuade
ICANN it stands for anything in particular or represents
anyone in particular. It is trying to organize itself to
*become* an organization with that kind of validity but it
has not yet done so.

Even if, say, 250 members were to obtain Thawte certificates
and qualify themselves under the Web of Trust process you
recommended, then come to an agreement on a position and
submit a report to ICANN signed by all of them, ICANN could
-- and most likely would -- simply say "Who cares? they
don't represent anyone but themselves."

I think the problem is "apples and oranges". ISOC is an
established organization with a substantial membership and
a track record. ICANNATLARGE.ORG is a domain name and a
group of people who objected to the abolition of an open
At Large constituency within ICANN which could elect its
own representatives to sit on the ICANN Board of Directors.

If ICANN disallowed the limited enfranchisement it
originally gave to thousands of individual Internet users
who had registered within its own framework, what makes
you think they will cave in to the pressure exerted by
an unincorporated group of a few hundred even if you can
guarantee the identity of those few hundred?

Perhaps I've misunderstood the goals of this group for
nearly a year but I had thought the idea was to build an
organization which would interest a broad membership base
(we had hoped for at least 100,000) and keep growing, all
the while insisting to ICANN and any other interested
parties (like the U.S. Department of Commerce) that the
administration and governance of the Internet should be
at least as democratic as was called for in ICANN's
original charter.

Nearly a year later, we are still arguing with one another
about whom we should allow to participate in our start-up
phase and whether we should allow them to make any decisions
at all about how to get organized!

>>Yes, it does make sense to confirm in some way that the people
>>in the group are real people and that they are not trying
>>to cast multiple votes under different identities but NO,
>>I do not wish to be part of a so-called activist group
>>which believes in the presumption of guilt and the absence
>>of the rule of law in its dealings with its own members.
>>Somehow, that just doesn't seem like the right spirit in
>>which to approach individual Internet users and encourage
>>them to be good Netizens within a democratized Internet
>>governance.
>>
>Isn't ISOC a body of "good Netizens" then?

Maybe not ... but I don't worry about how they organize
themselves since I didn't join them.

I did join this group, which I thought was concerned about
protecting the interests of all the ordinary citizens who use
the Internet and haven't the money or clout or personal
relationships within the industry for ICANN to recognize them
as a group that matters.

I've now resigned from it because it seems fairly clear that
the interests of Internet users outside this little group are
now irrelevant. Some people are as uninterested in them as
any ICANN director or employee, while others want a venue
for complaining but aren't much interested in constructing
an organization whose complaints *would* be taken seriously.

At that point, I have nothing further to contribute but
some comments about things like organizing, democracy and
co-operation ... and those don't seem to be very welcome so
I will be unsubscribing this weekend to pursue efforts more
likely to result in something constructive.

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