[forwarded with permission]
Hi Lauren,
At 01:57 PM 7/26/00, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>Hi. With the blocked redistributions for non-list members for some
>of those lists, I've only replied to you.
>
>As you can imagine, I'm rather inundated with e-mail right now
>(more than the usual mountain) and my ability to whip up suitably
>detailed replies in short order is very limited at the moment, so
>please excuse any lack of quick responses.
>
>But I think the key point is that there are all sorts of models possible as
>to how to try make things better, but unless some positive steps are taken
>soon the "default" evolution is likely to lead us to a very bad place, with
>the forces that now wield most of the power over the Internet becoming ever
>more firmly entrenched, and the currently disenfranchised groups staying
>that way, permanently.
Agreed!
[It's not your motives I question,
just your approach :-]
>Are there risks in change? Yes, but we should and can learn from history.
>One of the advantages of a new organization, at this stage of the game, is
>that it would be possible to write into its bylaws, from day one,
>protections to try avoid the sorts of pitfalls that history has shown us.
Did you know that ICANN's current "pitfalls"
were predicted, and that many of us mobilized
to "fix" the by-laws before they were adopted?
For example, did you know that there were multiple
proposals for the so-called "Newco," and that some
of these proposals were written solely to get the
kind of by-law provisions that you now seek added
to ICANN's by-laws?
Did you know that several of us on these lists
were involved in multiple conference calls between
Commerce and the initial ICANN board, to make the
very changes that you now seek?
In other words, what makes you think that this time,
it will be different? The game is fixed, and until
we acknowledge that fact, we will get more of the same.
>This is of course no guarantee of success, nor of different pitfalls, nor of
>new negative factors that we can't even imagine at this point--but that lack
>of guarantees is in the nature of everything we do in this life.
>
>In the end, domestic governments will (and should) make the decisions
>about what they're going to do (or allow) in these areas. It's
>worthwhile however, to try ensure that they're working with balanced
>information and input from the broadest possible spectrum of
>individuals, groups, and interests, and that's a major part of
>what this proposed organization would be trying to achieve.
How balanced can your information be, when you have
not engaged in a dialog with the "disenfranchised"
early participants? How much support can you expect
when you put forward proposals that are insensitive
to their concerns?
If your goal is to replace ICANN with something better,
then shouldn't we be working together as allies?
Jay.
>--Lauren--
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Strategies
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
-------------------------------------------------------
"We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
-- David Korten
