[ncdnhc-discuss] clarification (sort of) on ICANNatlarge.com and other ICANN "at-large" things

[Erick Iriarte Ahon]

Hi!

>>Nobody have the global voice of users, and each region have differents 
>>ways to defend their positions. The Internet is not only in the US 
>>Congress, and not only the "American User Organizations" defend to all users .
>
>Erick, you are free to choose to support organizations that treat you like 
>a PR focus group, and never grant you any voting rights in anything.   Yes 
>of course.  Send a donation to Esther, by all means.


>However, I don't see how you refer to ICANNatlarge.com as a "American 
>User" organization.  Right now it only has 1 US board member, out of 
>7.  Joop runs the web page, and Thomas Roessler runs the listsevers.  And 
>what does any of this have to do with the US Congress?  I was not aware 
>that democracy was a US only thing.  Indeed, I don't think it is a US only 
>thing.

Don't confuse.. i don't against ICANNatlarge.com. I don't use the term 
"American User Organization" for ICANNatlarge, i use this term to another's 
"things" that think the only "good ideas" and "good things" are in US.

I respect a global and diversity organization, because try to defend all 
interests.

Is more cleare my possition?

Erick



>   Jamie
>
>
>>Maybe the ICANNatlarge.com is a possibility to coordinate efforts to make 
>>a better ICANN and better Internet, but we need all point-of-view, and if 
>>appear more organizations: welcome.. not all groups defend users, another 
>>use users to take political positions.
>>Erick Iriarte Ahon
>>
>>At 02:31 p.m. 18/07/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>>
>>>Just a few comments:
>>>
>>>At 18.07.2002 07:10, James Love wrote:
>>> >4.   A few days after the ICANNatlarge.com election Esther and Denise
>>> >announced that there would be yet another ICANN sponsored effort, this one
>>> >using at-large.org, a site first registered to Kent Crispin.   The new
>>> >"at-large" effort appeared to be run by Esther and Denise.  The Esther and
>>> >Denise effort created a new "At Large Organizing Committee"  made up of
>>> >people who represent organizations, with a few dozen members.   There 
>>> is no
>>> >evidence that this group actually meets, votes, makes decisions or 
>>> does much
>>> >more than appear on a web page, but it has a lot of nice well meaning 
>>> people
>>> >involved.  http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm. In Bucharest
>>> >Esther and Denise explained that this group would not have votes, but 
>>> would
>>> >find ways to learn what the public thought... it was sort of an 
>>> outreach or
>>> >focus group for public input, but one basically managed top down, rather
>>> >than bottom up, and in keeping with the deep hostility of the ICANN 
>>> board to
>>> >anything remotely democratic, it did not even insist on the right to elect
>>> >its own leaders, which seemed to allow Esther and Densie to run it however
>>> >they like, without any need to explain "why them?"
>>>
>>>You are (mis)portraying ICANNatlarge.com and the ALOC as two
>>>competing entities. In fact, ICANNatlarge.com is represented
>>>/on/ the ALOC. But I'm not trying to defend what the ALOC does
>>>or doesn't do: The point is that I believe it would be a bad
>>>idea if user organizations started to fight against each other
>>>to become the Single Authoritative Voice of the Users. I
>>>believe we need an interface between a multitude of user
>>>organizations and ICANN. And someone has to reach out to
>>>user organizations worldwide (which is what Denise Michel is
>>>doing). Of course, that interface must be composed of and
>>>elected by user organizations in the end.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>/// Alexander
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>--
>------
>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
>voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>