[EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community

Wed Jun 11 11:23:34 EDT 2008

Following your discussion, Wolfgang and Jefsey, I could well imagine 
an interesting debate between two "old-hands" about ICANN in 
general and At-Large in particular ...

Thanks and regards,
Wolf

 Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:24:
>Thanks JFC
> 
>I do not know whether I am really ICANN centric. I am more Internet centric and if ICANN in the cneter of the Internet than I can accept this. It is not a secret that I am a long time critical supporter of ICANN. Regardless of all the failures and setbacks, I see ICANN as the best of all worst case scenarios we have so far for the future of Internet Governance.  I also have the impression that ICANN has still a lot of potential, that it is still a laboratory and that ICANN 3.0 will look much better than the original version. It is up to the community to make ICANN better and better.
> 
>Anyhow, below are some comments ot your comments
> 
>wolfgang    
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von JFC Morfin
>Gesendet: Mi 11.06.2008 12:37
>An: Discussion for At-Large Europe
>Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Improvement of the win-win relationship between the Staff and the At-Large Community
>
>
>
>Dear Wolfgang,
>I suppose that these answers are also here to be discussed? Your
>points are well made. We obviously have a slightly different vision
>of the network.May I say that I feel you are more ICANN centric, ISO
>is user centric and WSIS and I are person centric (this in my mind is
>neither a critic, nor a something very differentiated, just a flavor
>- evolutions and transitions make the things fuzzy anyway).
>
>At 10:45 11/06/2008, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., EU-RALO:
>>
>>1.   What issues being debated in ICANN do you believe are the most
>>important to your RALO?
>>User and consumer rights, in patricular with regard to the so-called
>>ICANN issues (including freedom of expression, date protection,
>>privacy, prices, security, stability, diversity, multilingualism)
>
>JFC:
>
>I fear there is a mission creep when you speak of freedom of
>expression? IMHO, ICANN claims two products:
>- IANA operations
>- NTIA root g/sTLD coordination
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>No it is not FOE or so as such, it is the FOE dimension of the management of critical resources (FOE & new gTLD is just one exmaple) 
>
>
>>2.   How can we help make the time you spend on ICANN issues as
>>valuable and efficient to you as possible?
>>a. To avoid long and time consuming buerocratical procedures and discussions
>>b. to concentrate on substance and relevant issues
>>c. to imrpove the interaction with other ICANN constituencies
>>d. to work towards a more significant AL representation in the BoD
>>(from Voice to Vote)
>
>JFC:
>
>Amen. Except that Staff cannot work against corporate policy rules
>and by-laws without a BoD reformation mandate. My feeling is that it
>is up to us to obtain that mandate. Since we only have Voice and no
>Vote, we can only use external pressure until ICANN respects its Charter again.
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>External pressure is always good but you should not say good bye before you havestarted to try to do something. 
>
> 
>
>
>>3.   What challenges and opportunities do you see for your RALO and
>>for At-Large more generally (in the context of ICANN work)?
>>
>>ALAC and the RALO mechanism have a great opportunity (and
>>responsibility) to become the center of gravity for individual
>>Internet users around the globe.
>
>JFC:
>
>I disagree it would be an opportunity for the Internet community
>(please remember that a global system is a closed system and there
>are only win/win or lose/lose situation). In a distributed system a
>center of gravity is bring the system back to decentralization. This
>would introduce/maintain a rigidity which would split the network.
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>Yes and know My wording is obviously misleading. The way you put it you are right. My point is that ALAC/RALO should become a recognozed and well accepted key player ina decentraliced system. 
>
>
>>If ICANN can achieve this, it will be much safer against a new wave
>>of efforts by various (governmental) groups to get a more direct
>>governmental oversight over the management of critical Internet
>>ressources.  This is in particular important in the context of the IGF.
>
>JFC:
>
>If Governments were a danger through the IGF it would mean that
>@larges have poorly participated to the IGF they obtained. @larges'
>legitimacy as the IGF leaders (as being in each of the poles of
>governance as we made them defined and documented) is THE @large
>dramatic success at the WSIS. The IGF is "us", the ALAC may be "you"
>when ICANN is "they".
>
>This is were we have two different point of view: for you @larges
>should help ICANN to control the Internet, for me @larges should help
>ICANN to become the best possible example of support of the @large
>control on their own Internets throughout the common Internet.
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>I do not see the contradiction. ICANN will never control the Internet. Nobody cn control the Internet. ICANN coordinates some critical components. And users shuold have a say in how this is planned and executed. A strong ICANN  is not bad but ICANN will get strong only with a strong at large.  
>
>
>>  4.   How interaction between and within RALOs be increased?
>>
>>Specialized F2F meetings, also on the local/rgional level are important.
>
>Yes.
>
>>  Workshops, Round Tables etc. with opportunities for remote
>> participation are very helpful but have to be prepared carefully.
>> There has to be substance für such events, not just "coming
>> together and strengthening relationships". A workplan which would
>> identify three to five main priority topics for individual Internet
>> users for a period of three or five years would helpful. Based on
>> working papers, such a process could produce a discussion around
>> issues aimed at a final document which could lead to an "At Large
>> Publication Series" where users get quick access to answers.
>
>JFC:
>
>I am somewhat less practically optimistic than you. There is a
>growing france at large/FGI-FR consensus that we need a new
>comprehensive set of tools, based upon the state of the art (webDAV,
>RSS, ATOM, Wiki, Semantic Wiki, Mioga2, and more to come) to build an
>on-line maieutics oriented towards a new ad-hoc understanding of
>documents and document presentation to support multiconsensus (to
>possibly present in the same document opposing local consensus and
>their interoperations possibilities).
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>Agreed, more toosl Internet based no "classical academic staff" are need.  You are right. 
>
>
>>5.   What are the top three things you would like your RALO to achieve?
>>a. to stablize its still fragile institutional structure
>>b. to do more outreach to get a sub-regional geographical balance
>>(in case of EU-RALO this means CEEC, Russia but also Northern Europe
>>(Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Greenland)
>
>.... and france at large :-)
>
>>c. to produce more substance / input
>
>Yes. But I am afraid there is a big split between the world as ICANN
>wants us to evangelize it and the world as we observe and make it. To
>realise that, I suggest you access our flow-chart:
>http://franceatlarge.org/org.htm.
>
>We have not understood the second reason why Staff opposed
>france at large, but we feel it is because a part from not existing, we
>are existing too much. This, certainly is a problem. What an ALS is
>permitted to do. There is a confusion to clarify in Paris : @larges
>are Internet @larges, not only ICANN @larges (at least in our
>opinion). This is why we consider much substance, including but not
>dedicated substance about/for ICANN.
>
>
>Wolfgang
>
>I did not really undertand the disucsison on france at large. You will help me to understand it better in Paris.
>
>
>>d. to become a key player in the EURO-IGF
>
>you are more than welcome - both to http://euro-igf.eu <http://euro-igf.eu/>  and http://euro-igf.org <http://euro-igf.org/> .
>
>>6.   What are the top three things you believe ICANN Staff could do
>>to help your RALO?
>>a.reduce the  burocratical barriers to get things done
>>b.organize financial support for local and regional activities
>>c. fight for ALAC interests and positions within the ICANN burocracy
>>d. help to transform ALAC into an ALSO which would give the AL the
>>same right as the three other SOs have, that is to send two voting
>>directors to th Board.
>
>As I indicated, c and d are things Staff cannot loyally do unless for
>example we obtain a joint review committee to be convened by the BoD.
>These are things ALAC should certainly do.
>
>I will give you an example of key mission for an ALSO. ICANN is in
>charge (MoU with IETF) of the IANA operations and of what is related
>to Names and Numbers, IETF retaining control on Parameters (even if
>ICANN tend to pretend it is in charge of Parameters too). Now there
>is another important IANA area which is not allocated which is the
>description of the inter-users direct exchange protocols. This means
>all what users need to communicate in addition to addresses, domain
>names and protocol parameters. This includes for example : language
>documentation (IANA ccTLD Tables and Language Sub-Tag Registry), new
>product specifications (ALSO should review all the IETF/WG-Charters
>as IAB does. IAB is for architectural consistency, ALSO should be for
>usage convenience and interoperability with non-Internet solution of
>the digital convergence. Netiquette should also be documented, there.
>Terminology too. Etc...
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>Agreed, but even if in your opinion ALAC staff would become illoyal if they do c&d we should ask for doing this. The staff is not an instrument to control the consituencies, the staff is a service provider for the consituencies. This is my reading from the ICANN bylaws. And this is part of a bigger story if it comes to the relaitonshipo between the Board and the ICANN staff
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>

comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
www.comunica-ch.net

http://blog.allmend.ch -
Digitale Allmend