Re: [ga] Proposed GA Adcom

[Kilnam Chon <chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr>]

karl and all,

i agree with karl that we have to consider the following population(silent
majority) who would join the internet community in the future;

1. 6 billion people in the world.  most of them(over 97%) are not using the
   internet now, but many would use the internet in the coming years.

2. 150~200 million internet users. most of them are not reprsented at dnso;
   neither ga nor constituencies.

this is more than what we are working at committee E: global awareness and
outreach.

chon

On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 03:12:27PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> > > > The NC is the elected body - elected by the Constituencies - to 
> > > > administer/manage  the affairs of the DNSO, and to act as the channel to 
> > > > the Board.
> > > 
> > > Ah, but there are many who do not feel that they have a constituency for
> > > their interests.  So we need to be careful not to think that the NC is
> > > perceived by all as being a broad-based entity.
>  
> > Tell me more.  Is the issue the Individual Domain Name Holders
> > constituency - which I support - or something else ?
> 
> Something else...  (And I really appreciate that you are asking.  It's a
> nice change from the confrontational politics we all seem to be sucumbing
> to.)
> 
> (As everyone may or may not know, the IDNO is recovering from some very
> painful growing pains and is organizally somewhat under the weather.
> (How's that for euphemisms? ;-)  In any case, I expect it to recover.)
> 
> But the IDNO isn't the issue (although it is part of it.)  (And I might
> add that the IDNO is very concerned about the thought that it might have
> to raise several thousands of dollars in order pay DNSO constituency
> fees.)
> 
> We really ought to recognize that the 7 constituencies represent a
> snapshot of what someone thought are important DNS interest groups.
> 
> But as we have seen there are several kinds of gaps in that coverage.
> 
> First, there's the issue that is near to my heart, that of finding a place
> for individuals - and not merely ones who "own" domain names (that's the
> IDNO) but also for those who actually use domain names.  This is a
> somewhat vague group, and their interest is mainly formed from notions of
> ease of use of the net, but there is also a large interest in terms of
> "opportunity value".  I personally feel that there ought to be a voice to
> represent those who could wake up one day and say "hey, I'd like to do
> something on the net and I need some name to put onto my Internet flag".
> 
> A case in point is "yahoo.com" - it started life as a hobby by a couple of
> Stanford students.  Another example of "opportunity" interest is indicated
> by eBay.com - it started out as someone's hobby collecting Pez dispensors.
> 
> An additional aspect of that somewhat vague concern is that of the yet
> unspoken needs of those people who live in the yet underdeveloped parts of
> the world.  I'm very concerned that when this new medium finally is widely
> deployed everywhere that people in those nations don't wake up to discover
> that they are too late and that all the good things have been pre-empted
> or taken.  Perhaps I'm being condescending or paternalistic, but I feel
> that the DNSO really needs to actively encourage advocates of those
> communities which are not yet today on the net.  I don't know how to do
> that very well, but I think having a wide open door with a big "welcome"
> sign wouldn't hurt.  And I suggest that our current constituency scheme
> presents a rather contrary image.
> 
> 
> Another group that seems to have been left out are small businesses.  They
> are swamped by the big guys.  And there may well be a strong
> differentiation of interest between local business that indend to stay
> local and local businesses that want to use the net to engage in worldwide
> trade.
> 
> Also, there is a skewing even within the chartered constituencies. For
> instance, intellectual property is important to two groups - those who
> "own" the property and those who use it.  (We often forget that the legal
> foundation of marks contains a strong element of protecting the consumer
> of goods and services.)  Tand there is a tension between the needs of
> those who own trademarks and the consumers of goods and services that
> those marks identify and distinguish: mark owners generally want the most
> broad application of their mark while consumers needs are often best
> protected by highly focused marks. And the concepts of
> dilution/tarnishment are not necessarily in the interest of those who
> consume marked goods and services.
> 
> Yet, the IP representation in the DNSO is primarly representative of those
> who own marks rather than those who consume marked goods.
> 
> Also, lumping churches, schools, community groups, political parties,
> artists, free-software-writers, trade unions, local governments etc under
> the single umbrella of "non-commercial" both under-represents those groups
> and also mixes folks who do not necessarily share a common point of view.
> 
> (As a case in point - the theatre group I do volunteer work for is a
> non-profit corporation.  Yet it has a budget of several million dollars a
> year, employees a significant full-time staff, leases several buildings,
> and engages in internet, print, and media advertising.  Its point of view
> is in many cases more aligned with business interests than with a
> child-protection group.  Yet both are forced into the non-commercial
> constituency.)
> 
> I would personally have preferred not to have pre-formed constituencies,
> but rather allow coalitions to form, evolve, and disolve over time.
> 
> Finally, the DNSO really does have a strange balance of groupings.  Where,
> for example, is a place for those who write (and often give away) Domain
> Name software?
> 
> And why should all non-commercial groups be lumped into one bucket while
> registries/registrars are microscopically subdivided so that, as a net,
> they get multiple constituencies?
> 
> There is, of course, no perfect structure that everyone is going to agree
> to.  But the current form of the DNSO is seen by a significant number of
> people (and organizations) as being a very exclusive club.
> 
> I submit that it is likely that DNS policy is going to be subjected to
> political review in various nations.  I'm hoping that the work the DNSO
> does will be wise and good.  And if it is, I would hope that it not be
> torn down or fragmented because of opposition by those who are opponents
> mainly because they were not allowed to participate fully in the
> decisions.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>