RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
|> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
|> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:24 AM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hi Vany

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

Certainly, the suggestion was limited on purpose.  A beach is laid by the
first grains of sand.

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

As I have at others.  My suggestion is that the meetings should be
conducted with with all participants attending remotely.  That levels the
playing field somewhat.

|> 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.

Personally I see no need for F2F meetings at all.  The issues to be dealt
at such meetings do not require F2F and it gives obvious advantages to a
minority.

|> 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.

Minor point.  One we all deal with when we do business across time zones.
There are ways to deal with the issue.

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

Far more accountable than F2F.  Are all the discussions, hallway
conversations and back room agreements recorded?  No, they are not.  There
is far more that goes on at F2F meetings than any remote participant ever
hears about.  With all such meetings conducted online and I mean fully
online, the whole procedure can be documented and recorded.  The accounting
and auditing would be greatly improved.

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

No, they answer to who they are accountable to, in this case the Internet
public.  They should not dictate terms.

|> 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.

Honestly I can only see a limited need for any non-public viewing if not
participation of any Board or staff meetings.  There would of course be
some sensitive matters that can not be made public until the correct time
and online meetings can be structured to accomadate these.  At least we
would all know when they are happening if not the content.

|> > 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.

No system is perfect but we can assume those with a specific interest would
be able to participate. Let's face the practical aspects.  If people do not
have a modem or some means to access the Internet they are unlikely to have
any interest in the ICANN process.  They would be involved in other
matters.  It would be far more productive to concentrate on removing the
barriers to participation that those interested are now facing rather than
day dreaming about how people with no current interest may or may not be
disadvantaged.  If some of the disadvantages can be lessened for those
interested now, all will benefit and other alternatives can be investigated
as the need arises.

|> 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.

Personally I think if we concentrate on making things better for the ones
that are already trying to participate, the rest will eventually follow.
If we attempt to limit the requirements for additional funds at this stage
we will set some ground work so that outreach will be possible to a greater
degree in the future.  We must not concentrate on Utopia so much that we
loose sight of what is actually possible now.

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

They will always be some obstacles in this regard.  The human race is
designed for equality.  We can only attempt to limit the impact.

|> We have also to keep in mind this, since not everybody is connected to
the
|> Internet properly.

I'm on a dialup myself although I do have access to greater bandwidth.  As
for those not connected now, isn't it better to deal with the current
situation which is that people who are connected and who wish to
participate are disadvantaged.  Attempting to attain Utopia in one giant
step is far beyond anything that is achievable at this stage.

|> > 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 idea is to limit the disadvantages, I do not honestly believe it is
possible to elimate them.

|> >  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.

Work can be carried out in this line but it should not limit what we do
now.

|> > 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.

We think differently on this aspect and I know a lot of other people agree
with you.  Perhaps it is a personality trait of mine that does not see the
need for such meetings in a group like ICANN.

|> 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.

More work on this issue would certainly be welcome.

|> 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.

This would be a good start.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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