Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

Leah:

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> >
> > >  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
> >
> > Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with
> > organizations, who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
> > the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this
> > process doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

> I do not think that ICANN is the relevant source for provision of
> internet infrastructure for all persons and we could go way out of
> bounds using that assumption.

I inferred what you are saying in my previous e-mail  Yes...I am agree,
providing or ensuring
internet access is outside the scope of ICANN.

Well, I'm afraid I must disagree with both you and Leah on this one.
ICANN is supposed to be a technical supporting body that is to help
construct an Internet that will serve the public good, and if providing
bare access to the Internet is not a part of that, I don't know what
would be.  To elevate the issue of webcast access to the presently
connected above that sounds very much like the "haves" haggling
over pieces of the pie while the unconnected are snubbed. It's a
bit of the "I'm all right, Jack" syndrome, and, philosophically, is
not a bit different mode of thinking than that about which so many
of all of us have complained: the "powers that be" (e.g., ICANN/
Verisign) are running everything for their own benefit.  In the
present instance, those who have comfortable access to the net
(webcast or not) are the "powers that be," and the attitude shown
here towards those not connected is precisely of the ICANN/
Verisign type.

It is also a major strategic mistake: if GA types are ever to wield
any power, there must be a lot more of them -- and active, voting
ones.  The only way to achieve that is to get more GA types, and
that means getting more people connected, especially those in
disadvantaged parts of the world, or disadvantaged parts (either
geographically or socio-economically) of various countries, who
will not have immediate business interests that will currupt their
thinking.

(A recent court document I'm aware of says "The Internet was
built in order to serve business interests." How many of you here
believe that?)

The post to which I respond were written from the point of view
of personal interest, not the good of the Internet or of ICANN:
"Let them eat IRC chat."

(Nothing personal as to two fine ladies here, whose posts I have
frequently been led to admire, but I've seen this bit expressed by
way, way too many who don't fully realize how far up the ladder
they really are -- to be a "participant" at all is a rare privilege, and
a big step from not being one at all.)

Bill Lovell

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html