[ga-icann] Re: [ga] 305 Voters

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

Marilyn:

Hope you follow me -- I've jumped this to ga-icann where it belongs.
I've jotted some quick responses below, but am also about to post
another thing in ga-icann which goes deeper.

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really doesn't
> belong at ICANN at all,

Very true.


> 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;

I recently joined ISOC, and will see what's going on there. (So far, not much.)

> others might suggest
> some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...

Wouldn't think so.  We've too much techie-nerd stuff here already, with
regard to the real "public" interests you and I (and some others who've
been writing me) are beginning to talk about.

> 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...

Absolutely. If any of them know of a filter that will screen out personal
attacks
and innuendo, political infighting, "me first," and all that we could use one.
:-)

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

And thank you -- and I go by "Bill" -- aka "Wild Bill," and others not fit
for public consumption.

(What's an "LGA?")

Bill

>
>
> 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. (ASCAP and BMI are not exact
> parallels, since they are for profit, but the structure is similar.) What
> the
> National Writers Union has is local chapters, that have meetings and the
> whole schtick. Others that are massive and to which I also belong are
> the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the
> Advancement of Science. But these, of course, are directed at specific
> subjects (more or less) which constitute the actual professions of their
> members.  Except for registrars, ISPs, etc., "the internet" is not a
> profession, but a tool, and users thereof typically don't give a rip about
> the nuts and bolts: "can I get on line and get to where I want to go and
> send an email to whoever?" is the extent of their interest. It's like
> computers:
>
> who wants to know how the inside works, as long as it does? And
> why not? These people may be dentists or bankers or truck drivers, etc.,
> with their own professional and job concerns. So the bottom line question
> is what you said: can that kind of range of people be given an incentive
> to become involved enough to join in on something that would function?
> The bones of such a thing exist in ICANN, namely, the supposed "at-
> large," but there's no meat, and instead we have the GA playing at that
> role instead of doing its own proper function.
>
> An internet issue that should be of wide interest: your ISP gets bought up
> by megacorp #1 which in turn is purchased by megacorp #2, the service
> plummets, and although you are told that "you don't have to change your
> domain name," nevertheless a couple of months later you do -- what was
> once teleport.com became some other screwball thing, and then onemain.com
> (or maybe the other way around -- who can follow?), and on date X there
> will be no teleport.com addresses whatever, either you move (to the new
> thing, preferably!) or you're toast.  And never mind that you have a lot of
> time left on your annual contract.  That kind of thing might help generate
> some interest, but this whole "root" bit and a lot of the rest of it will
> never
> capture the fancy of the general public, which is why there are 305. The
> root thing is the right thing in the right place, but not something that
> will
> draw out a crowd. The DNSO/GA is not the place to do what a lot of
> the people in the GA want to do.
>
> (And actually this bit I should have put in ga-icann -- my mouse sometimes
> takes on a life of its own.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >
> > Marilyn
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
> > To: ga@DNSO.org
> > Subject: [ga] 305 Voters
> >
> > Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
> > Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
> > vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
> > for millions. Amazing!
> >
> > Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up"
> > operation by ICANN might arise because it has almost
> > no "bottom?"
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

--
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm


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