Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 11:11:45PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> The concept I wanted to put forward is that if we have, let's say, 100 
> GA members that are speaking as individuals (while the rest is involved 
> in one or more already recognized Constituencies), it will not be 
> sufficient to have half a dozen of them pushing hard for a Constituency 
> to put the proposal forward, but we need larger numbers.

No question about that.

> The 16K ICANN members are a completely different animal.
> I personally have no idea about how and why they came to the conclusion 
> of being willing to be ICANN Members, but what I can say is a large 
> majority of them is "a priori" not specifically interested in DNSO 
> issues, because I have never seen such a crowd online or offline debate 
> DNSO issues before.

That simply doesn't follow, and in fact, I am convinced of the reverse:
I believe that most of the atlarge members know of ICANN primarily
through domain name issues. 

> And it is fairly likely that we will *never* see the
> 16K debate DNSO issues (but this is just my feeling).
> Don't misunderstand me, I am tremendously happy that 16K people are 
> showing interest in ICANN, and definitively would love to see 10, 100, 
> 1000 times more, but I have serious doubts that the reason for joining 
> is to discuss DNSO matters.

Not to *discuss* DNSO matters.  But DNSO matters will almost certainly
be a significant factor in the elections.

Moreover, I believe that you are ignoring a very salient political fact:
while *you* may see the 16K ICANN members as "a completely different
animal" from an Individuals Constituency, many others do not see it that
way.   That is, it is a matter of political "optics" as much as 
anything else.

> >  One must also consider
> >that from the perspective of representation, the atlarge membership of
> >ICANN controls half the board seats.  This is far more
> >power/representation than *any* constituency of the DNSO.  There is a
> >real and legitimate concern that the atlarge membership already tilts
> >the representation equation far to the side of individuals. 
> 
> Representation of what?

Of the interests of individuals.

>  For doing what?

For installing candidates that consider the interests of individuals as
their highest priority.

> All what I know is that these 16K or hopefully more people will 
> (eventually) elect half of the board.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that these 16K people will bring any 
> contribution to the debate on DNSO issues.

No evidence that they won't.  Quite the revers, actually -- it is quite 
likely that at least some of the new board members will bring discussion 
o fissues concerning individuals to the board level. 

> And this is the point.
> What is needed, is the voice of the laymenm the users, the consumers, 
> the small guys, the families, the individual domain name owners, and so 
> on, in the debate about policy making.
> And this debate is done in the NC.

Most of the debate actually takes place in the WGs.

> Therefore, this essential component of the Internet world has to be 
> present.

It is present.  The presence is through a different mechanism.  That 
mechanism is not perfect, but on the other hand, that mechanism has a 
*lot* of weight -- half the board is far far more power than, for 
example, the IP constituency gets.

Think about it this way:  How do you think the IP constituency would 
respond to the opportunity to elect half the board, on the condition 
that they give up their place on the NC?

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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