I appreciate your array of credentials John. Very nice. I've done my share of volunteering on related issues (though not isomorphic), and much of my travel to conferences and the modest amount of testimony I have offered to various branches of government has mostly been on my dime, too. I'm also an organizer. I dont see that experience in the bio you offered, but maybe you left that out, for brevity. I consider some degree of organizing deeply relevant to an ALS, to a RALO, and to this process. One aspect of effective organizing is patience. You need not suffer fools gladly, but you might want to figure out whether they are in fact fools/naive etc before dismissing everything based on the weight of your experience. You have asked "why not work within this particular structure" to accomplish what we want. You miss the point of organizing, and education and outreach are closely tied to organizing. This requires a certain social sensibility. As to past failures you have mentioned - and I wonder whether, in fact whether they were total failures or if there was value in the attempt. Imagine an election or a referendum. An idea or candidate need not carry the day to be relevant to the process. And their absence might lend to catastrophe. Organizing is about seeing the possibilities in certain social situations. You position the limited view of the possibility as a truly good thing, when it reads as much less fortunate. Now, again, why not use the existing structure. Here I find a basic error of logic .... you fail to acknowledge that I/we are in fact availing ourselves of the existing process and structure. We are working within a form and opportunity presented to us by the very structure you mention. If it's not a meaningful option, then perhaps it is just a distraction. Is that your view? Why was it ever conceived and presented as an option? If you dont believe in this, why dont you step aside and leave it to others? Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Another sociological dimension you may not have considered: as we are not eschewing existing structures in discussion and possible formation of the RALO, but to some extent embracing an opportunity the structure presents us, there is another layer ... namely the utility of intermediary structures. Mistaken impressions of the utility of any structure notwithstanding (which I take it to be your main point, in your private note) there does remain a great range of opportunity and utility in 1) process of creation of those structures and 2) potential use of those structures... if, and only if, we approach it in an appropriate spirit. Nothing you have said indicates any appreciation of these facts. We need the space in which to create the tools we need, and organizations are tools. We are trying to operate under the framework given, and to be creative within that framework. Creating a sense of identity in the RALO as well as in an ALS are very important aspects of this I hear no recogntion of that, and more, your total opposition is a signal that despite technical expertise there are some roles that are not for everyone. We need technical expertise certainly, as well as a deep awareness of the limited role that ICANN has, but we're not talking about ICANN as much as we are talking about a community of users concerned with the policy issues at stake. Either you are here to help us create that community (with or without the formal dimension) or you are not. If you are not, what is your purpose? It is not your right to block the formation of the RALO. Now, as you might also consider, the utility of the RALO is not limited to interaction with ICANN alone. We are not here in a game with ICANN being the only player. ICANN is subject to other forces/institutions. ICANN is amidst a wider discourse. If we are to be intelligent about this, and about the role of aggregated user communities meaningfully organized, we will see that our voice is relevant in that wider discourse. If we are wrong in this, we are wrong in the entire At Large enterprise. Is that what you suggest? I believe the RALO and network of ALSs is relevant and offers potential for something useful, or I wouldnt waste my time. There is much you have not answered in previous posts, and that is very telling. As my perspective is deeply informed by organizing, of which community networking and community weaving are sets of related activities, I have a sense of where you are coming from, but also that this work is important and cannot be derailed by a narrow perspective. The work of organizing is what is at stake, over and against technical exigency. This is what community is about. As to your comments on not having participated in Open Space processes, whether or not that was intended as dismissive, I will offer that there is a very important concept in that practice, namely: holding space. That's a talent or skill of the highest form of organizing. I hope that this dialog has had some value to others on the list. Regards to all, Michael Maranda AFCN On 2/7/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If you dont see that the realm that ICANN covers is intricately related to a host of other matters that are best dealt with in the same conceptual space, even if different entities may have jurisdiction or authority over them and will require our addressing different bodies in a coordinated way then perhaps you cant see the big picture.
I fear my problem is that my imagination is sadly limited by actual experience working on Internet issues. I will admit that I have never spent two intense days at a conference envisioning open space collaboration.
On the other hand, I've written a book that millions of people have used to get onto the 'Net, I've been in several PBS shows that teach people about the Internet, I've been a board member of and published the online newsletter for the largest grass roots anti-spam organization in the world, I've testifed in front of the US Senate about spyware legislation and in front of the FTC on spam legislation, participated in the broad-based international Anti-Spyware Coalition, I've been a member of Industry Canada's multi stakeholder anti-spam taskforce, and I've spent over a year on the ALAC observing ICANN's processes and lack thereof up close. (In case you were wondering, this is all paid for out of my own pocket, other than sometimes getting travel reimbursed, and Industry Canada paying me a little bit to write and edit part of a report.)
None of this needed a RALO. Indeed, a RALO wouldn't have made a bit of difference to any of it.
I also know enough of the history of ICANN and the people involved in that history to know about the dreams of expansive user organizations, all of which went nowhere for the reasons I've been telling you about. None of this is a secret; anyone interested in ICANN and Internet governance should be familiar with it to avoid going down the same unproductive paths that lead to predictable failure.
Take a look at http://www.icannatlarge.com, which has been gathering dust for the past five years. If you believe that a comprehensive Internet user organization is a good idea, here it is, already in existence, ready to go, with a membership including a thousand people who care deeply about ICANN and the Internet, and a modest amount of money in the bank, lacking only leadership with unlimited time and energy to devote to it. What would your big picture NARALO be that icannatlarge isn't? Why don't you work with icannatlarge now?
R's, John
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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