Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 26 Aug 2001, at 21:43, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> 
> > Leah:
> >
> > L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > > On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >  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.
> >
> > > I do not think that ICANN is the relevant source for provision
> > > of internet infrastructure for all persons and we could go way
> > > out of bounds using that assumption.
> >
> > I inferred what you are saying in my previous e-mail  Yes...I am
> > agree, providing or ensuring internet access is outside the scope
> > of ICANN.
> 
> Well, I'm afraid I must disagree with both you and Leah on this one.
> ICANN is supposed to be a technical supporting body that is to help
> construct an Internet that will serve the public good, and if
> providing bare access to the Internet is not a part of that, I don't
> know what would be.  

If we use your argument, then who is responsible for providing 
access to PBS - a television for everyone?  Who is responsible for
providing telephone service and equipment to every individual?  While
we're at it, should everyone be provided a PDA or cell phone or pager
because it is important to have one for emergency communication?  

While I would like to see every home have a computer and access 
to the net and everyone have a telephone at the very least, I do not
believe that the agencies and non-profits that set the protocols have
the responsibility to provide those things.  Half the people who do
not have computers or internet access do not want it.  Many people
today still don't have telephones or television.  Of those there are
many who don't want them either.

To expect ICANN to provide internet access for anyone who wants 
it is going far beyond what a technical coordination body is meant to
do.  It goes beyond its mandate with policy as it is.  I think what is
much more essential is to educate the public that is connected and
provide a means for access to decision making.  Providing
infrastructure and connectivity for the public is a totally different
endeavor unrelated to ICANN.

I would certainly applaud an endeavor to connect the world via the
internet and provide to anyone who wants it the connectivity and
equipment.  Hopefully there are and will be organizations dedictated
to doing just that.  I, for one, would try to join such an
organization if I have the energy and time to so.  However, I
sincerely hope that does not become just another expansion of the
ICANN picture.

To elevate the issue of webcast access to the
> presently connected above that sounds very much like the "haves"
> haggling over pieces of the pie while the unconnected are snubbed.
> It's a bit of the "I'm all right, Jack" syndrome, and,
> philosophically, is not a bit different mode of thinking than that
> about which so many of all of us have complained: the "powers that
> be" (e.g., ICANN/ Verisign) are running everything for their own
> benefit. In the present instance, those who have comfortable access
> to the net (webcast or not) are the "powers that be," and the
> attitude shown here towards those not connected is precisely of the
> ICANN/ Verisign type.
> 
> It is also a major strategic mistake: if GA types are ever to wield
> any power, there must be a lot more of them -- and active, voting
> ones.  The only way to achieve that is to get more GA types, and
> that means getting more people connected, especially those in
> disadvantaged parts of the world, or disadvantaged parts (either
> geographically or socio-economically) of various countries, who will
> not have immediate business interests that will currupt their
> thinking.

A campaign to get more people to participate in the GA is a great
idea.  As a matter of fact, if only 10% of those on the net with
domain name issues were to become involved, the GA would be so large
that this list could not accommodate them all.  A mail list does not
require audio/video or high speed connectivity.

If all the potential at-large memberswho presently have some kind of
access  were to become involved in that membership, we would achieve
what we are after - users having a serious influence on the technical
coordination of the net.

> 
> (A recent court document I'm aware of says "The Internet was
> built in order to serve business interests." How many of you here
> believe that?)

Well, we know that it was not and that it became commercialized 
in the last decade.  Perhaps we need to repeat it more often so 
that those who were not part of the net prior to the mid 90's will be
more enlightened.  It seems that too many people think the internet is
the WWW.

> 
> The post to which I respond were written from the point of view of
> personal interest, not the good of the Internet or of ICANN: "Let
> them eat IRC chat."

Don't knock IRC chat, Bill.  It has provided a means of direct 
communication that literally anyone can use with any speed 
connection.  It doesn't have to be fancy to be an important 
application.  It has certainly enhanced the webcasts and, if 
necessary, could be used for many meetings where webcasting is 
not feasible.

Then there are news groups.

Not everything has to be the latest in high tech to involve the vast
majority of people with stakes in ICANN.

> 
> (Nothing personal as to two fine ladies here, whose posts I have
> frequently been led to admire, but I've seen this bit expressed by
> way, way too many who don't fully realize how far up the ladder they
> really are -- to be a "participant" at all is a rare privilege, and
> a big step from not being one at all.)

As it happens, Bill, I made having at least a bare bones computer and
connectivity a priority over many other things that some would think
more important.  It was my choice to not have other amenities so I
could have this one.  Others can make the same choice.  I am far down
the ladder when it comes to other things that you might find critical
to your existence. 

I really think we are going too far afield with talk of internet
access "for the masses" because almost anyone can have it (at least in
the US)  if it means going to a cybercafe or library.  Just as not
everyone can have a television, a car or a telephone because it is not
provided to them by a government agency or other org., not everyone
will have his own computer and/or personal access to the internet for
the same reason.  My daughter went through four years of college and
part of law school without having her own computer and internet
account.  Having one has made her life a bit easier, but until she got
one of her own, she used the ones at school. Her life did not stop
because she was not involved with the internet.

I guess my point is that not everyone must be involved.  However,
those who do have a stake in ICANN policies should have a means to
participate.  ICANN should ensure that every means of communication is
available to those with any level of connectivity.   For meetings that
could mean IRC chat for every part of the meetings, complete
transcripts of all meetings, news groups, mail lists - whatever it
takes.

Leah


> 
> Bill Lovell
> 

--
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