Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

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

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 16:09, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
[snip]

(The next paragraph I believe to be from Leah, and the following
one from Vany.)

> Yes, there is definitely a digital divide, but solving that is not part of
> the function of ICANN, IMO.  I think that we must concentrate on
> making it possible for those who ARE connected to participate in
> ICANN's decisions process.

Agree.  And always use technology that are accesible fo those that
incorporates in a later date.
Is obvious that in Internet, researchers and programmer are designing codes,
software, images and audio formats that
have better quality and more heavier than in the past (in technology the past
is like one minute ago).

(WSL) My sympathies and support go to those who ask for more deletions
from emails being answered, but here we have an example of the hazard.
The
notion that ICANN has no role in "solving the digitial divide" I believe
to
have been that of Leah -- it was certaiinly not mine; earlier I spoke
out
against that notion (which post Vany evidently did not see before sending
this one of hers).

I  heard the following phrase from a young researcher from Mexico who I met
in a Digital Video Workshop that took place in Georgia Tech, which was held
in March of this year:  "Sometimes, just because you (this is me) are
searching tools or systems that
have low cost and allows access with low bandwiths, then you (this me again)
are making a step back in the development of technolgy"

Bottom line here is:  We have to be carefull about technology.  That better
resolution images and better audio quality doesn't impress to us, because
latecommers  probably are using low speeds to access Internet, in comparison
with the rest of the world.  And if we begin to upgrade software  and ask for
better quality audio and video (which also requires to upgrade the hardware
and internet speed), we are denying for those that hasn't have the chance to
upgrade their hardware and internet speed to access what in the past they was
able to access.

So now this latter bit from Vany I believe to "hit the nail right
on the head" -- she
is exactly right.
> I wonder if there is still people using UUCP for
> mail, and 14Kbps modems for
> access internet and participates in ICANN.
Very likely there are, and very likely Erik Dierker could tell us who some
of them are!
> > The point is that ICANN's
> > stakeholders are those who are on the net in whatever capacity.
> > Those who are not yet on the net are future or possible future
> > stakeholders.  ICANN's stakeholders do not have the means to
> > participate, even with the webcasting, because they are denied a
> > voice that has any meaning.  IOW, ignored or paid meaningless
> lip
> > service.
Um, they are participating, but not in the manner that they would like,
and indeed, that a lot of such participaton is ineffectial as a practical
matter is also no doubt true. But even so, this list to which we all
have
easy access is certainly meaningful -- if I didn't think it was I wouldn't
be here.
> That's why many Non-Commercial organizations and
> even ISPs particiaptes in
> ICANN, in order to also watch the interests of those sectors the constituency
> represents, that doesn't have the ability to participate by themselves.
Were that were true.  I hope it is. I'm not aware of any means by
which any
Non-Commercials (e.g., the NCDNHC) have taken up the guantlet for
individuals who have no constituency, and would love to have that explained
to me.  (And not to mix up subject matters here, but even were
that true --
and I've no reason right now to believe that it isn't; Vany says they
are --
that does not take the place of a constituency for individuals (or
at least
for Registrants -- which distinction would take another dozen emails
to
lay out, so we'll drop that!)
> > Let's deal with what "is" and not what "might be."
Or better yet, let's deal with what "ought to be." A part of that lies
in something on which Vany and I very nearly agree: let's get all the
Model A Fords and Volkswagens on the road before we worry
too much about the Cadillacs and BMWs.
> > Agree, but I would add that always keeping an eye to the future.
(I believe that Vany is agreeing with Leah ddthat the "digital divide"
is not an ICANN issue.)

One cannot just "keep an eye on" the future; one must build it.
That's mostly what we in the GA are doing, methinks.

Cheers,

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