RE: [ga] 305 Voters

["Ladi" <dnso@ladi.net>]

My personal general feeling is that technical issues simply cannot exist
in isolation from policy issues. Trying to divide them cleanly is
useless as one side will always need to understand the other at least on
a basic level, unless we just want to degenerate into two groups
pointing fingers at each other and never getting anything done. I point
to the current email as a file transfer method issue occupying NANOG as
my most recent example.

By the same token, are "non-ICANN issues" really that far from "ICANN
issues"? Not to start a new debate, but perhaps a form of the digital
divide is why some people can effectively put up a fight against UDRP
and others don't even bother. Perhaps a more unified approach is in
order...

And as a history major, I need to plug my own discipline (and my
thesis): past models are also worth examining. Without thinking too
hard, I would hazard a guess that the creation and professionalization
of the scientific community is worth a look.

~Ladi

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:48 PM
To: 'William S. Lovell'
Cc: ga@DNSO.org
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters


I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really
doesn't belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting,
bright, and involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want
to also debate, or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital
divide; privacy on the net in general, security of
applications/communications, etc.

I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look
at. I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP
and BMI examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others
might suggest some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...
but the point is that we should see if we can learn from any of them ,
and from the other SOs about what might work...

Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think
more...

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: ga@DNSO.org
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters




"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that 
> it
just
> works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
businesses,
> and they want to take Internet operations for granted?

Marilyn:

That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
wrong place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical
advisory body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed
necessary, but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out
what the "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The
attempts by Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual
"charter" of the GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a
place to vent every gripe known (along with beating up the other guy,
etc.), creates yet another thing to gripe about, and the real business
gets lost.

> For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
about
> ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:  
> glad you are paying attention; think that our association staff 
> should. Now, I have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4 
> months, won't you?
>
> I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have 
> developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more 
> thoughtfulness.

I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run
quite professionally and serve their own special public very well. One
of these is the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP
(songwriters)
-- for which there is another one -- BMI. 

<snip>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html