Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

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

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 16:09, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > There may be a "model" for that sort of thing.  I'm on a service
> > called OregonVOS.net, which is run by the State of Oregon
> > (through a third party vendor),

Good for inhabitants of the Oregon State!!!

> Yes, there is definitely a digital divide, but solving that is not part of
> the function of ICANN, IMO.  I think that we must concentrate on
> making it possible for those who ARE connected to participate in
> ICANN's decisions process.

Agree.  And always use technology that are accesible fo those that
incorporates in a later date.
Is obvious that in Internet, researchers and programmer are designing codes,
software, images and audio formats that
have better quality and more heavier than in the past (in technology the past
is like one minute ago).

I  heard the following phrase from a young researcher from Mexico who I met
in a Digital Video Workshop that took place in Georgia Tech, which was held
in March of this year:  "Sometimes, just because you (this is me) are
searching tools or systems that
have low cost and allows access with low bandwiths, then you (this me again)
are making a step back in the development of technolgy"

Bottom line here is:  We have to be carefull about technology.  That better
resolution images and better audio quality doesn't impress to us, because
latecommers  probably are using low speeds to access Internet, in comparison
with the rest of the world.  And if we begin to upgrade software  and ask for
better quality audio and video (which also requires to upgrade the hardware
and internet speed), we are denying for those that hasn't have the chance to
upgrade their hardware and internet speed to access what in the past they was
able to access.

I wonder if there is still people using UUCP for mail, and 14Kbps modems for
access internet and participates in ICANN.

> The point is that ICANN's
> stakeholders are those who are on the net in whatever capacity.
> Those who are not yet on the net are future or possible future
> stakeholders.  ICANN's stakeholders do not have the means to
> participate, even with the webcasting, because they are denied a
> voice that has any meaning.  IOW, ignored or paid meaningless lip
> service.

That's why many Non-Commercial organizations and even ISPs particiaptes in
ICANN, in order to also watch the interests of those sectors the constituency
represents, that doesn't have the ability to participate by themselves.

> Let's deal with what "is" and not what "might be."

Agree, but I would add that always keeping an eye to the future.

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