Re: [ga] The Real World

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Good evening Roberto,

I very much agree with your contributions concerning the necessity
for Registrants representation.

Why ICANN is called sometimes an experiment ?

In my understanding, the terminology of "ICANN experiment" relates
to the developpment and implementation of extraterritorial
rules in the gTLD space, and to ensure that this gTLD space
may then expand. 

Let me refer to the ccTLD space.
The ccTLDs provide services to their "local Internet communities", 
developing and funding local policies, and are accountable locally. 
The "local Internet communities" (private and public sectors, 
to which government and individuals belong), develop and manage 
policies within a "sovereignty" of the ccTLD space. 

For the gTLDs, it is ICANN itself which has to perform the role 
of the "local Internet community", bring users and producers, 
gTLD Registrants, gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars together, 
and be accountable globaly. 

The DNSO is that place, the place where community meets. 
It is by definition a melting pot. I imagine it in one way
like the creation of United States with all those immigrants
coming from old countries.
Except that here we are all immigrants to the global Internet
space trying to build its extraterritorial rules.
It is of paramount importance that such a place, the DNSO,
the open melting pot, does exist.

The DNSO GA does not "represent" all Registrants from the planet,
it is impossible. The DNSO GA role is to be a place, in the spirit
of openess and IETF-like, when anybody can join, read or bring his 
questions or concerns about Internet domain names, service provider
or end user. The few hundreds of knowledgable people already 
gathered at the DNSO will certainly react if important matters arise.



Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
NB. The Secretariat kindly accepted to publish my text on 
"Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO" at 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-3years.html
--



"Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Good morning.
> 
> I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> >You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
> >individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
> >construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
> >the constituencies.
> >
> >However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
> >-- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
> >and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
> >pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
> >zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
> >democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal special
> >interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
> >individual users of the Interenet/DNS.
> >
> 
> Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency for 
> Individual Domain Name Holders.
> There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention, but 
> I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a 
> representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the 
> most vocal participants, but they will be there.
> 
> I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by 
> kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is not 
> supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking of 
> additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility of 
> disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that passed 
> with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).
> 
> So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement 
> in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the 
> maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed 
> willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies 
> exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority, because 
> that will be the only practical effect?
> 
> My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good 
> contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by any 
> real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still part of 
> the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that if a real 
> constituency will be given a chance, there will be many potential good 
> contributors who would participate. Of course there will be kooks, but a 
> constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than the GA, for 
> instance.
> 
> A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be 
> representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not. 
> Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness 
> of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days 
> of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule to 
> deal with it.
> Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential membership, 
> at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, nevertheless, it 
> exists and plays a useful role.
> This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at 
> ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable 
> "evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for representativeness? 
> After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the situation and 
> definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
> I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make 
> good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership, and 
> get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance is 
> not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to bring 
> people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed 
> constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have its 
> voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
--
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