Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force/dotcommoners

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Svensson,
I enjoyed reading your sound analysis and agree to take the issues
separately.

A priest lives in his parish next door to the chapel and preschool.  even
though the parish would give him a car he chooses for all the right
reasons to donate it elsewhere.  Meanwhile the traffic light goes out
which is the crosswalk to his preschool, now he finds out that
pedestrians cannot petition for repairs of street lights--you must own a
car first!

A doctor who has more patients than he needs has no need for a domain
name.  He helps rural farmers on both sides of the border with the U.S.
and Mexico, transportation is hard but at least one home in each town has
an email (or maybe it is the only store in the ejido). So in the evening
he is busy answering emails to cure illness and prevent illness.  Even if
he had a site it would waste his time and energy to use it.  He is
excluded from input into "governance".

It has never and should never be the right of businesses to demand the
say in policy, it is and always should be those effected at the lowest
level. (don't jump to fast) I did not say businesses did not dictate
policy, I simply point out that since businesses and large interests like
IPs do dictate business the rights must be vested in the user of those
rights.  This is why earlier today I quoted the boilerplate from the MoU
prohibiting by law discrimination.

I submit that if this exclusion goes further then there will ultimately
be a larger divide and this will in fact divide the internet.  I believe
countries that act responsibly to their citizens will object strenuously
and if they are not heeded then we shall look back and say "An
Internation shall be judged upon how it treats its most minimal user".

{are those registered with the existing dotBIZ considered to be domain
name holders?}

Sincerely,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
> ALSO: only individual domain name holders? I think there are
> two roads to answering this, and both are not perfectly satisfactory.
> One is: How much impact have ICANN policy decisions on IP
> addressing and protocols had yet? Not too much, for various reasons;
> the pressure is on ICANN mainly because of the DNS. If this
> changes (probably rather in the IP address area than in the
> protocol area), we have to think again, but at the moment, the
> main IP address policy arenas seem to be elsewhere.
>

> But let's discuss the issues separately and let's not bash the
> whole report just because of this. You may like the ALSO, but
> dislike its composition of DN holders. Or perhaps you like the ALSO
> and its composition, but dislike the number of Board seats. Or maybe
> you dislike or like everything. But let's have a differentiated
> debate on this! (Obviously, I have strayed from addressing
> Roberto here... ;)
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
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