Re: [ga] The Real World

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

I think it is also relevant to mention that for all practical purposes, Kent
is the only ICANN staff member who regularly engages in these debates on
ICANN's DNSO listserves.    He is hired as a technical person, but the
"policy" people on the ICANN staff won't participate.  This is unfortunate.
I for one was pleased when Joe Sims was posting on this list, and I also
appreciate the willingness of Vint to post here, and Alejandro to post
regularly on the NCC list.   I wish that Dr. Lynn and other other "policy"
people on the ICANN staff, and some other ICANN board members, like Linda
Wilson, would engage the masses, like Kent, Vint, Alejandro (and sometimes
Joe Sims) do.

 Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
To: <kent@songbird.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World


: Good morning.
:
: I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.
:
: Kent Crispin wrote:
: >
: >You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
: >individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
: >construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
: >the constituencies.
: >
: >However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
: >-- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
: >and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
: >pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
: >zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
: >democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal
special
: >interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
: >individual users of the Interenet/DNS.
: >
:
: Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency
for
: Individual Domain Name Holders.
: There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention,
but
: I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a
: representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the
: most vocal participants, but they will be there.
:
: I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by
: kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is
not
: supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking of
: additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility of
: disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that passed
: with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).
:
: So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement
: in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the
: maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed
: willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies
: exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority,
because
: that will be the only practical effect?
:
: My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good
: contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by
any
: real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still part of
: the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that if a
real
: constituency will be given a chance, there will be many potential good
: contributors who would participate. Of course there will be kooks, but a
: constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than the GA, for
: instance.
:
: A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be
: representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not.
: Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness
: of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days
: of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule
to
: deal with it.
: Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential
membership,
: at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, nevertheless,
it
: exists and plays a useful role.
: This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at
: ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable
: "evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for
representativeness?
: After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the situation and
: definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
: I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make
: good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership,
and
: get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance is
: not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to bring
: people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed
: constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have
its
: voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.
:
: Regards
: Roberto
:
:
: _________________________________________________________________
: Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
:
: --
: 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