Whether there is perception or fact of ICANN or others working at odds, I think we all need ot figure out how we can best work together towards our common purpose.
Sometimes if someone comes in with theri perspective, perhaps new to this group, or not aware of particular histories, they become the object of a criticicm which traces to other forces and actors. That does not mean their perspective is not valid. I am not arguing for equal validity of all perspectives either. But we do need agood mechanism for introducing people to a cooperative culture with some history. Also, we need room to revisit past perceptions and decisions.
I believe Darlene has made a very important set of points in how we should engage here and the tone we should set. Ths is important for the work we want to do and for the future participation of others.
As a newcomer to this discourse I didnt come in with blind faith in the goodness or effectiveness of all parties, nor am I unaware of some entities potentially being used to serve as window dressing. With such awareness we can take pains to make sure we do something of value.
I didnt come here to feel important, I came here because these policy questions are important, and we should use as many mechanisms as we can to promote the public interest. Anyone who doesnt think this can be an effective locus of activity would do well to direct their attentions elsewhere, I am sure. But for the most part we should endeavor toward civility and welcoming others to the work.
Michael
-Michael
On 4/18/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather
> than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in
question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been
accepted months if not years ago.
> The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such
> an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the
> benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he
thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in
the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full
bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at
large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not
people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of
all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested
people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest
at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of
the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price
increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than
that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against
ICANN.
To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere,
the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you
think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem
you should be concerned about.
If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say
you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been
the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and
ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher
dilute what little influence individual users have.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be,
http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
* - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're
deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP
customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users
from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust").
Let's not go there.
_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
---
Draft MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:
http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org