Re: [ICANN-EU] LA @large meeting preparation

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Giampaolo,
What I propose is not a specific response related to what others
may offer or propose but to our priorities, i.e. what we globally want.
This is the purpose of the discussed priority points I maintain. I will
certainly take your inputs into account in the next print out, as for
others.

If we have not worked out these priorities each of us we will not be
able to adapt to the different opportunities, meetings, etc... he may
encoutrer in a coherent way to the common benefit.

Our global priority is to set-up ourseleves as the @large european
group without falling into the trap of our different opinions. Andy
understood it clearly: this ML should concentrate on the @large
organization. This is a concrete, immediate and challenging task.
I think that this list may really copntribute from the experience of
the past weeks. And I believe that the "noise" is a proof we are on
the good path.

Opposing parties in term of ideas should cooperate to that effort.
Then once we have achieved the brick and mortar, we will be able
to resume discussions in our own walls.

European @large currently have:

-  one Director elect and expects a second one to be elected
    (we have to lobby for the elections to be set-up)
-  several small but active Mailing Lists : icann-europe, icann-fra,
    icann-debate (new one)
-  experience of relations with press and meetings in Germany
    and in France
-  a good common site : icannchannel.org
-  good ties among ex-candidates : France
-  mathemaical analysis capacity : Vittorio
-  possible polling booth : Joop's
-  a common short history and different rough consensus on
    several matters
-  extablished relations with other areas

This is something. We have to build on that. This is what I want
to help.

I note that we have a problem which translates into the disinterest
of Alf or others. I describe it as the difference between @large
and @wide. I explain:

-  during the election period we could discuss of everything since
    we wanted to determine the opinioni of the candidates and to
    support them. Our interests were unlimited. This was exciting.

-  now the election is over, we have to cooperate within the ICANN
    structure in bringing it our added value. Our interests are now
    linked to the ICANN. This may seem less exciting. I feel it is
    more important.

An adaptation is necessary. This is what Alf is demanding. There
may be two ways: either we wait for decisions from the ICANN or
we propose/impose ours. As I wrote to Alf, from our position and
from our sucess most probably depends the future of the ICANN.

A final note. We certainly elected Andy. But he will be our
representative the day he will cooperate. Do you know a mail
address he reponds to?

Jefsey


PS. I am not naive. I try to promote some common effort towards
individual internet users representation through the ICANN's @large
effort because of the work already achieved and of the opportunity.

But I know that only a stand alone movement may succeed. We are
in parallel working on the @wide issue (everyone interested please
let me know). We hope having some proposition soon.

I suppose the final solution will come from an @wide (all the users,
independently from any organization) penetrating all the different
internet so-callled governance bodies through the @large organization
of each of these bodies. This means that if the ICANN @large
organization is well made, it will be copied by IEFT, MINC, even
WIPO, etc... and if it is not, the effort of Karl Auerbach will have
to be pursued again and again.


At 13:16 15/10/00, you wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:13:25 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >to all:
> >I will try to maintain here a list of action points for the LA meeting, 
> so all
> >our representatives may have a common platform - if they want to use it.
>
>Are you speaking about the CPSR meeting or ICANN's meetings ?
>
>If I not missed some posts, Hans Klein kindly gave to an European At
>Large representative a slot of time to describe our in-progress
>organization and to discuss with others the global issues of At Large
>Membership. Thomas and Hanno seems the natural receivers of this
>invitation, but others can play this role
>
>After this meeting, there will be the scheduled ICANN session. There
>our 'representative' is Andy, which has his views on At Large and will
>have a lot of other tasks to do (he asked for priorities and started
>to list: networking with other directors, transparency, legal support
>of policies ...). We can help him with an open set of possibilities,
>but we are only at starting point.
>
>Don't misunderstand, please. I appreciate this debate (someone, me
>too, feared a blackout after the election!). Most of your points are
>good ones.
>
> >Personal current comments :
> >
> >In LA we will obviously be faced to the Japanese and Chinese
> >number. Hence I believe in actions now to:
> >
> >-  take a lead in the coordination of the other regions.
>
>This role is to be acquired and recognized ...
>
> >-  build a good file (as Vittorio's computations) and keep united
> >    as we are on this ML.
>
>Yes, but we are not going to the war ... IMHO the ALM has three main
>open issues, This is the first: Global vs. Regional vs. Local, others
>being Self organization vs. Institutional role, and Funding.
>I hope to be able to explain better my views in other posts
>
>Regards,
>         giampaolo