RE: [ga] new constituencies

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 00:28 20/08/00 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
>Joop and Robert
>
>I would have thought that the at large board members (and the other board
>members) alike have the responsibility to be concerned about the interests
>of all users -- whether they are individuals, non profit organizations,
>governmental agencies, or businesses of all sizes.  Since the Internet is
>being used by all these "types".  
>

Hi Marilyn,

Sure. The AL Board members will define their own role and concerns as they
will start to function. Ideally before their election.  
How much influence AL directors will have on DNSO policymaking is still an
open question.

>I'm not sure that consumers themselves want to be directly engaged.  I know
>that there are those who say, as activists, that they must be
>represented.... but consumers often delegate responsibility for keepign the
>trains running, so to speak, on infrastructure, to the suppliers...

I follow your train of thought very well and I must presume that you speak
here as a representative of a supplier , but don't you think that leaving
the interests of consumers in the hands of their suppliers, without any
independent representation of their own, is a little too tempting? 

On the national level, consumers have  the legislators to stand up for
them, but who but selfless activists will do it for them in a global place
like ICANN?
ICANN needs a number of such activists as directors, to balance with
business interests that are already represented.

, thinking
>they have better things to do, like run their lives, adn their businesses.
>I don't mean to be critical of the idea, just to wonder with you two about
>the practicality... perhaps we'll see from teh at large membership, what
>brings folks to stay engaged. 
>
>Individual names holders may have a different perspective, although it might
>be possible to think of them like individuals who get telephone numbers...
>most don't want to run the number allocation or standards system which
>determines how many digits, or routing algorithms.... hard to predict how
>engaged they want to be, I suspect,  until we see more from at large
>membership.  
>
Domain Names have proven to be a lot more sensitive and controversial than
phone numbers. 
New phone numbers can be looked up, by referring to the name and address.
Imagine what consumers would say if not only their phone numbers could
change when they relocate, but also their names would no longer be secure...

Naming is so sensitive because it is not an act of consumption, but of
authorship. 
The Domain Name is not just a consumable product, it is an identity.
In DNSO policymaking the owners of the identity need representation.


--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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