RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Helo Vany,

I'm about to say some things here that I am not too fond of myself. But,
these are observations that I have made over the years, involved with this
process...

|> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
|> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 8:24 AM

|> 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.

|> 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.

Over the years it has become painfully obvious that, online discussions move
glacially.
It is also obvious that there is, at least, a three order of magnitude
acceleration during F2F meetings. The reason is that the person-to-person,
many-to-many, bandwidth is much higher during F2F. Else, why have them at
all? A 1-second eyeball-to-eyeball glance, across a discussion table, speaks
volumes that months of online participation cannot begin to cover.

|> 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.

When talking about real-time multimedia stream, I have had these, at
0400hrs. Fortunately, after decades of abuse as a programmer, the sun's
relative position, in local terms, no longer matters to my state of
wakefulness. However, most persons do not enjoy such an advantage and many
simply "switch off" at sunset, like chickens. This has a serious impact on
global real-time discussions. Ignoring this will not make it go away and
will only generate resentment. 

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

No more, or less than F2F, in the ICANN context. No meetings are
accountable. I am not being facetious, this is observed fact. If decisions
are being made, they are made, in private, prior too any meetings, online or
otherwise, with no recourse by those not a direct party to those decisions.
We  participants are trying to do something about that, but *we* are not
gaining much traction there.

Note: Erik's question on ICANN ownership speaks directly to this topic. Any
corp is directly and solely accountable to it's owners and the issuer of its
corp charter. Forget the socialist drivel, in the USA that is a matter of
law. Ambiguity in declaration of ownership may gain someone an advantage
somewhere, but the organization *is* accountable to its owner(s), whomever
they may be. Further, those owners are accountable to the issuer of the corp
charter (State of California), whom is further accountable to the US Federal
government. The visible chain appears to be broken, but if the legal chain
were indeed broken then ICANN wouldn't legally exist and all this would be
for nought.

|> I think that we must ask ICANN Board and staff about such 
|> accountability issue, and any other issue around online meetings.

They are, in reality, not legally accountable to us. They don't have to
answer that question. By the same token, because they do not fund any SO,
they are not accountable to them either. This whole mess barely hangs
together. As a matter of fact, I don't see how it does at all. It just does.
That may be the core of the problem.

|> 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.

I think that the need is adequately represented by the need to make rapid
progress. Although it may not be entirely clear, as to whom progress is
being reported to and how ICANN is anwerable.

|> > 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.

|> Neither technology neither financial resources should be an 
|> obstacle. 

This is a goal that, even idealized, has no connection with reality. We are
not all created equal. There are those that will never be able to connect to
the internet, nor would they ever want to. There are others that simply do
not have the resources and this crowd doesn't have the collective resources
to make up the difference.

--
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com
--
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