<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] ALAC: Individuals Not Wanted
Joop,
thank you for reminding....
I am not as pessimistic as you are. But I continue to be angry at
brother Richard for killing the whole thing in hi-jacking our name
:-). Stupid, is n't it? But in a network technically based on names,
the common name is the foundation of everythin and of any sustainable
action. Having no money for big PR we used our name "atlarge". And
pleaded together to get "atlarge.org" This is what we started to
build upon for years and he took over when we were ready. Other went
away with the lists .... Richard killed us far better than ICANN....
I would have no problem ... if he had used it.
The IDNO was not something stable and was too weak due to the low
level of motivation of a domain name after a few years, but it was
the correct blend at the proper time: openess and technical & common
demands. @large as pure "user" simple and clear concept permitted to
do something, and to build an atlarge space which could have become
the real Internet. But deprived from our name by Richard's fancy, the
only asset we had in commonand our flag, in spite of our eventual
incorporation, banking account and an active bootstrap this could only fail.
I think however that today, should we get our name back, we could do
something because time has come where real @larges of the day (the
small network/home network) owners could represent something stable,
powerfull, with a real program:
- IPv6 for all
- user centric architecture
- multilingualism and cultural support
- open VoIP (interphone)
- serious, stable, updated internet documentation.
- new services
- ISP and manufacturer rates
- etc.
At the time IETF is trying to adapt, we would need to get present
there, instead of crying because the solutions we get are not the one we want.
I am joking at Richard, but I do believe he made us waste a few
years. And more if he does not gives us our name back. ....
Anyway I will propose in a few weeks something where serious people
(caring about the network, their own on-line aspects of their
business, common innovation, simplicity in network usage, political
stability, serious pricing, mutual cultural respect and support,
e-human rights, etc.) could work on something with a future, which
would be credible even with a few people. But everything is to build again ....
We have to rebuild a project, an image and a consensus aside of
@large since we lost our name. A huge waste of time and effort, we
all got tired of. And the day we will have done it, Richard will
bring back the name and create another mess.... :-) .... blessed
@large people !
Think of the Internet if Vint owned the name and brought it to Google....
jfc
At 10:15 18/09/2005, Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 07:30 a.m. 18/09/2005, you wrote:
Well I've told you this all along.
ALAC is a constituency that represents Individual Internet Users -
only trouble is: individual internet users are not allowed to join.
Reason: whatever happens, ICANN never wants to run the risk again
of individual internet users actually participating as individuals
and bringing the risk of democratic accountability to ICANN's processes.
Last time that happened, the democratically elected representatives
of the At Large were *expelled* from the ICANN Board.
ALAC was the structure introduced not by Individual Users but by
the ICANN Board - and implemented by Denise Michel - with the
purpose of creating the semblance of User Participation, without
the threat of its reality.
Look at the At Large forums. The voice of Internet Users of the
whole world? A Joke!
Why can Individual Users not participate in their own right in a
structure supposedly for... Individual Users?
Hello Richard,
It was on Sept 17, 1998, exactly 7 long years ago that IANA and
Network Solutions jointly published iteration 4 of a proposal to
create a California corporation, ICANN, to coordinate the
administration of domain names and IP addresses.
The first hopes of true global participation by Individual Internet
stakeholders in a very limited area of governance had been raised by
the Clinton administration's white paper and the commissioning of
Ira Magaziner to get the US out from under the unilateral governance
burdens that came with the creation of the Internet.
In spite of the obvious flaws the illusions were kept alive by the
first Bylaws of ICANN, that left an open door to self-forming
constituencies other than the 7 initial stakeholder constituencies
decreed at the Singapore meetings.
Followed the founding of the IDNO , its application for constituency
status for Individual Domain Name Owners at the Berlin meeting and
the Board's "non-consideration" rather than specific rejection.
That foreshadowed its multiple rewrites of its Bylaws.
We saw the Membership Advisory Committee and (briefly) MAC2, trying
to draft At Large membership rules; their quiet disbandment followed
when too many members had too many idealistic ideas and not enough
tame ones were left to populate the inner mailing lists.
Then came the Board's decision to appoint a hight-level
International Commission to deal with the inherent contradictions of
the situation. Karl Auerbach still on the Board at that time.
You remember how a year later Swedish politician Carl
Bildt and most of that expensive At-large Study Committee
committee slinked (only Chuck Costello protested vigorously) away
after the Accra Board meeting rejected their recommendations
for even a limited democracy of Individual Domain Name holders.
Lamentable!
We have struggled and lost some illusions. Some of us still do good
work by keeping the spotlight on ICANN's accountability obligations.
But none of us can change the direction of the new currents in the
excercise of global power, governmental or corporate.
Especially after sept. 2001 it became unrealistic to
entertain further illusions of global direct democracy, even of the
most limited kind, dealing with the regulation of global (public)
resources such as IP numbers and the name-space.
Who in his right mind wants now to lead or join a real membership
mass-organization that is doomed to knock at closed gates for
perhaps another decade?
Most of the thousands that were once actively involved, have
dispersed or, as you say, voted with their feet.
There are more promising endeavours for people who want to work for
a better world.
But perhaps some continuation of democracy experiments such as
www.democracy.org.nz/ or icannatlarge is still feasible.
I still believe that the maintenance of a small, transparant MODEL
of an At Large Membership organization that experiments with the
maximum amount of democracy that makes a cyber-organization of that
kind still workable, would be a good thing.
Perhaps the rejected Hawaiian lawyers will be interested. :)
Lamentable indeed that such a model At Large will be unable to tap
into the Domain Name Tax-based funding that sustains ICANN.
--Joop--
www.icannatlarge.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|