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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> <parts on which we agree or we know we disagree snipped>
>
>Not to *discuss* DNSO matters.  But DNSO matters will almost certainly
>be a significant factor in the elections.
>

Indeed.
That's exactly my point: the AtLarge members will have the power to 
elect 5 Directors (for the immediate future - maybe 4 more in the more 
far away future), but will not (necessarily) contribute to the debate on
 DNSO matters.
If this will happen, it will be a most welcome plus, but it is not "a 
design feature".

>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.
>

I never claimed to be "right", I only express my opinion. "Political 
optics", if you prefer.

>> 
>> Representation of what?
>
>Of the interests of individuals.
>
>>  For doing what?
>
>For installing candidates that consider the interests of individuals as

>their highest priority.
>

I admire your faith.
Do you really think that *all* the candidates for BoD will have in their
 program more than just lips service to the interests of the 
individuals?
This is like to say that the President of the US, elected by individuals
, considers the interests of individuals as his highest priority.

Personally, I will reserve the right to continue this discussion after 
the elections.

>
>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. 
>

You are quite right on this, some will indeed.

>> 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?
>

There is a great difference between a body that has one main interest, 
and the funding to pursue it (like the IP people), and a multitude of 
geographically and culturally dispersed, mainly without appropriate 
funding, non-organized people, that have different and sometimes 
conflicting priorities, if not even interests.

The "individuals" will never form a homogeneous block like IP, or 
Registries, or other Constituencies.
Their function is to raise problems to the attention and the debate, and
 this is what I am afraid is missing in the mechanism.

As an example, individual users in the industrial world will indeed vote
 in a different way than individual users in areas that have a different
 development model (see for instance the debate in NonCom about the 
different approach on the creation of new gTLDs).

In fact, this role of "melting pot" could have been assumed by the GA, 
and this was indeed my hope and my intention in accepting the 
Chairmanship, but this has not happened for a number of reasons that 
will be out of place to discuss in this thread (but that we need to 
sddress in the near future).
My question is whether a Constituency for individuals would instead 
provide more direct focus on specific issues and would therefore be more
 effective in providing input for discussion on DNSO issues.
Which seems to be an impossible task for this GA.

Regards
Roberto
--
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