DNSO Archives: [ga-full]

Clever words, dear Esther!

Not "walking away"... rather: "building an alternative (democratic)
structure"
You ask: "why waste so much of your valuable time on a trick?" ... exactly
so... people have expended years of time and effort trying to work *with*
Icann to build democratic representation for internet users... Icann just
kicked the At Large elected representatives out of the Boardroom... so "why
waste time on a trick" indeed?

When you say *we* can make a difference, Esther, are you referring to Icann,
or are you speaking on behalf of the At large movement... if so, who has
elected you, and what mandate do you claim (or Denise for that matter) for
setting up this agenda for the ICANN Board.

Sorry Esther, but this fake, top-down initiative (not mandated by any vote)
is the mission and agenda of the ICANN Board. So please, when you say *we*,
I'd rather you spoke for your ICANN friends rather than for the At Large.
The At Large has not voted for you at any level. It has not asked you to
launch this initiative. You have no mandate.

I repeat : the claims of the At Large are too big to be met by ICANN's
structure and agenda (which are designed to contain and limit the At
Large)... you're not stupid... you know that perfectly well.

Let the At Large groups vote, one vote per individual, on whether they want
the elected At Large representatives kicked off the ICANN Board : you know
the outcome already. What you are trying to do is consolidate an
anti-democratic outcome and finish the "reform" work of Stuart Lynn. If you
genuinely believe in the *real* voice of the At Large, then call (as I do)
for individuals to verify themselves, vote, and repudiate this ICANN coup.

Only the clear voice of an independent At Large umbrella group - a coalition
of internet users - can stand out starkly to reject the "Lynn reforms" which
have stripped users of their representation.

I do not believe you are part of the At Large "we", Esther... I believe you
are part of the ICANN "we"... I believe your support for the ICANN agenda
identifies you with a process and structure which you know only too well
will institutionalise the limitation of the At Large to the powerless
margins of a quango which wants power for itself.

I believe that the Internet belongs to the people, and that much more
ambitious processes and structures need to be set in place. Fundamentally,
the people should take over from the ICANN politburo. That was what was
beginning to happen with the introduction of the At Large directors (except
there were not enough of them)... ICANN could not stomach that, and it did
not fit the agenda of USG either.

Where is the big mailing list of original At Large voters? Why does ICANN
run scared from democracy? Why were the At Large directors ousted?

There is NO legitimate answer.

You are "part" of "what", Esther?

regards

Richard Henderson

postscript: in the spirit of the season, I hasten to add I have nothing
personal against you... in fact, given the needs of ICANN, I think you are
playing an extremely intelligent game... it's entertaining to watch... but
it's all a bit transparent, and the problem is making yourself credible to
more than one audience at the same time... the fence has Big Business,
ICANN, and USG on one side of it... at the same time, you're trying to make
yourself reasonable and acceptable to the democracy movement on the other
side... but the fence will always be there, because otherwise democracy
would simply vote out the Board. The Board will continue to make up
processes and change the rules to keep democracy on the other side of it.
Taking part in the ICANN Ralo's will not change that at all. It is a trick
which diverts energy, buys time, creates legitimacy for a dictatorship, when
what is really needed (in the words of your leader) is "regime change". If
you were an Iraqi dissident, would you say that your best option was to
"influence" Saddam through his own constitution??? It's laughable, because
that's exactly what you're suggesting in the case of the ICANN Board. It's a
dictatorship and only regime change (and the establishment of the democratic
representatives of the people) will truly bring about governance of the
Internet by the people for the people.

----- Original Message -----
From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>; Alexander Svensson
<alexander@svensson.de>; Atlarge Discuss List
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and
PROPOSAL

> If you believe all you write below, then you are right to walk away,
> because you will not be able to change anything. But why waste so much of
> your valuable time on a trick?
>
> I believe we *can* make a difference, and that's why I am spending *my*
> (valuable) time....
>
> Esther
>
>
>
> At 06:29 AM 12/23/2002, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >What is the point of being "part" of that structure, if you know the
Board
> >will overrule you, if you know the Board has already kicked you out of
the
> >Boardroom, if you know that the Board is determined to resist democratic
> >representation, if you know the Board has a track record of favouring a
> >small coterie of Big Business interests, if you know the Board wants to
> >marginalise you, if you know the Board is cynical and manipulative, if
you
> >know the Board is opposed to the primary goal of the At Large?
> >
> >You say the At Large *has* to be part of the "structure" to influence
> >events...
> >
> >Firstly, that structure has been set up to support and protect industry
> >insiders and the trademark lobby, and to defend their interests against
the
> >rest of the world and its democratic claims to have a decisive role in
the
> >governance of the Internet. The structure is *wrong* and is loaded
against
> >the Internet User constituency. Participation in a *wrong* and *negative*
> >structure, imposed top-down and without democratic accountability, will
> >merely help perpetuate the bias against ordinary users.
> >
> >Secondly, you are incorrect to imply that the At Large would have less
> >influence if it organised and mobilised *outside* the ICANN structure.
Why
> >on earth shouldn't it? It is *far* bigger than ICANN and should
ultimately
> >replace it. It is the biggest constituency of all, consisting of hundreds
of
> >millions of ordinary users who lay claim to the internet, possess the
> >internet, and make the internet what it is. It will be far clearer and
far
> >more influential if the At Large movement mobilises under an umbrella
> >*outside* ICANN and creates clear water between ICANN and themselves. It
> >will be far clearer if the At Large movement *REPUDIATES* Icann (and all
its
> >machinations, bias, tricks and deceit).
> >
> >Sorry Esther, but you seriously expect people to "trust" Icann and its
> >Board? You've got to be joking.
> >
> >Time and time and time again, you urge people (basically) to just
"accept"
> >their diminished position as a powerless subordinate in this "wonderful"
> >Icann structure which preserves Internet governance in the hands of a few
> >rather than in te hands of the people.
> >
> >It's a trick, Esther.
> >
> >You just don't want the *democratic* version.
> >
> >The internet exists for millions of individuals, not just for a small
number
> >of industry suppliers. One person, one vote - and let the internet users
of
> >the world determine the future shape of THEIR net, not the tiny fraction
of
> >people who are making a living from the process of DNS supply.
> >
> >I repeat, the ICANN structure is deliberately constructed to protect
vested
> >interests. The At Large should not legitimise that structure. The At
Large
> >should develop its own coalition of sympathetic groups and individuals,
> >under an independent umbrella which is very clearly independent of ICANN
and
> >a repudiation of it.
> >
> >The claims of the At Large are too big to be met by ICANN's imposed
> >structure and agenda.
> >
> >That's the bottom line.
> >
> >That's the 'realpolitik'.
> >
> >Regards -
> >
> >Richard Henderson
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
> >To: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
> >Cc: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>; Atlarge Discuss List
> ><atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> >Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:13 AM
> >Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings and
> >PROPOSAL
> >
> >
> > > SOrry, but I think this misses the point.
> > >
> > > ICANN is not "the board" or even the staff. ICANN is all the Internet
> > > participants (registries, registrars, root servers) who have contracts
> >with
> > > ICANN, overseen by the board. At least in principle and mostly in
> > > practice, they have to agree to its policies. If you want to have
> > > influence, you have to *part* of that structure....and have a contract
or
> > > at least an MOU with ICANN too.
> > >
> > > Esther
> > >
> > > At 07:23 AM 12/20/2002, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> > > >On 12:16 20/12/02, Alexander Svensson said:
> > > >>How much influence has IcannatLarge.org had until now? How
> > > >>has it achieved its (somewhat sloppily defined) goals?
> > > >>Is it the best way to influence domain name etc. policy
> > > >>development from a user perspective? Is a regional approach
> > > >>likely to be easier or more difficult to organize (think
> > > >>language, think communication, think time zones)? How
> > > >>do you get existing user groups to participate?
> > > >>
> > > >>These are the questions we have to discuss *before* we have
> > > >>the answer to the second question -- what IcannatLarge.org
> > > >>should do with regard to regional At Large organizing
> > > >
> > > >Dear Alex,
> > > >I like it when the list become quiter and a serious dialog can
develop.
> > > >Your point are the good point. I would comment your dialog with
Richard
> >as
> > > >follows.
> > > >- we want a male plug into ICANN of our own shape to get some real
> > > >Internet power, but we have not decided it yet.
> > > >- ICANN has set-up a female plug and we are not happy with the design
and
> > > >the way it relates to quite no Internet power supply.
> > > >
> > > >My understanding is that ICANN has no real Internet power and that if
we
> > > >organize we may have more. The cost and the effort is not nil but it
is
> > > >very low when we consider what is at stake. I do think that if
instead of
> > > >debating a few of us REALLY meant to take over the control of their
> > > >Internet, it would not be that difficult.
> > > >
> > > >- ICANN is probably 10 full time people
> > > >- USG is big but Nancy Victory is not 24/24 dedicated to Internet and
her
> > > >whole staff is probably mudded in bureaucracy a private commando
would
> >not
> > > >have.
> > > >- the cost is probably no more than a few hours a week, 10 to 30 PCs
(we
> > > >are talking of $1500/month equivalent)
> > > >- the vision of the system they have has no architecture, no plan, no
> > > >mutual agreement etc/ to work on such things would give a tremendous
> >lead.
> > > >
> > > >The real power is the number of users. You want an exemple? Take
New.net.
> > > >What ICANN reproaches to New.net is to be commercial, closed and
final,
> >ie
> > > >an alternative. Take dot-root: a test as per ICP-3, non-profit, non
final
> > > >(if a project is a mistake it has a back-off built-in possibility),
open
> > > >to all and calling for public reporting. I do think that we can
develop
> > > >dot-root to test, advise, work together on an ICANN III we all may
agree
> > > >and that might wear the name of ITU-ICANN.
> > > >
> > > >I do think we can do it. We only need to agree and cooperate. Today
we
> >are
> > > >disbanded and with no real common practical objective. Let stop
debating
> > > >as parrots and let unite those who want as a team, with a clear and
final
> > > >aim "to set-up a users' real international and innovative network
> >system".
> > > >
> > > >jfc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > > edyson@edventure.com
> > > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax 1 (212) 924-0240
> > > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > > http://www.edventure.com
> > >
> > > The conversation continues..... at
> > > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> > >
> > > PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> > > Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax 1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>

[ga-full]

[ga] Re: Recordings of Amsterdam Meetings