RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roleand,
ICANN should assume an infrastructure management mission only. Let suppose 
there is not much access in Saudi. I agree ICANN's role does not extend to 
organize access there. But ICANN role is not to *prevent* that access 
there. Without Arabic DNs, do you really believe many investors will be 
interested in Saudi popular Internet? The world is proximity SLD and TLD 
starving thanks to ICANN... while proximity is the largest expansion field 
for the Internet.
Jefsey


On 08:39 27/08/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>Bill, we have here a classic boundary problem. There are a number of other
>entities that are taking on the access issues. One of those that I belong to
>is the ISOC (www.isoc.org). Also, the ICANN is supposed to be a technical
>coordination body. What you advocate here would constitute mission-creep,
>because it falls in the realm of social services. Firstly, I don't think
>that ICANN can even do it. That's not the core business. Secondly, the
>resources aren't there. Thirdly, it's not our call to make.
>
>BTW, HTML mail is a bear to format a reply to.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
>Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:44 PM
>
>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
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
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