Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Dassa:

Please, note that the subject of GA/DNSO funding issues that your are
dealing here is only with the accesibility to ICANN Process by attending
meetings or having meetings online, etc.

There are other issues related DNSO funding that are not related with
the
issue you are exposing here and that I will deal apart.

Please keep reading.

Dassa wrote:

> My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
> online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
> including internal correspondance be made public on the website and we
> have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive correspondance may be
> excluded)

Wow Dassa.   I remember you was one of the remote participants of the
NCDNHC meeting in Melbourne with VRVS.

However, I think this is  too extreme.  I think still we need F2F
interaction.  I think your proposal can be equilibred with a combination
of both things:  more online meetings, less F2F meetings.

Only there is a thing that you are  missing when the meetings are
online:  Time Zone.  I don't think a decision taker person is in its
best
state of mind at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.

Also there is another thing that maybe it worries to ICANN:
Accountability.  Are the online meetings accountable?

I think that we must ask ICANN Board and staff about such accountability
issue, and any other issue around online meetings.
Why the need of F2F meetings?  We have to take in count also ICANN staff
and board needs.  They are also a party in this issue.

> One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we evolve both
> internal and external funding, there will always be inequality between
> those who have good finances and those who don't.

Sadly, yes.  But even with online meetings, then the disadvantage will
remain, because there are many people with not enough bandwith or even
not able to buy a good modem that wouldn't be able to participate in
online meetings.
We will have always people that remains outside the process, and then we
will need always to find funds in order to make such disadvantages come
closer as possible to the process.

Neither technology neither financial resources should be an obstacle. 
We
have also to keep in mind this, since not everybody is connected to the
Internet properly.

> We can never hope
> to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
> into the ICANN process.

Agree.

> We can not enforce equality as the system
> currently stands.

Agree.  Even in the best democracy, people living far away from votation
centers has to walk one or two hours in order to vote.
So, only the one with the energy to walk such distance will vote.
However, our system as they are, cannot fullfill that votation centers
are so close to be easy to access for every citizen.
This is a problem that is, right now outside the scope of ICANN,
although
ICANN should be sensible to this.

> We need to place limits so that those with
> financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
> funds.

Agree with this though.  We must find the way how to do it that no one
feels excluded neither disadvantaged

>  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.

Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with organizations,
who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this process
doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

> Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
> attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
> contributing to as volunteers.

Althouhg I like this thinking, please, keep in mind that anyway, some
F2F
meetings will be required.
We must find an equilibria in this.

I propose that the ICANN works in this issue in order to increase the
accesibility of everybody in ICANN process by lower the difference
between the ones with resources, and the ones without resources.

In order to begin, I think that the DNSO must propose to ICANN the
formation of a group to work on this issue.  Such group should include
people from: ICANN staff, ICANN Board or a delegate, DNSO
(Constituencies, NC, GA), GAC, ASO and PSO.
I think in this proposal should be included, mission, objectives, the
importance both for ICANN and stakeholders, etc.

Other thoughs?

Best Regards
Vany

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
--
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