[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Legitimacy
lots of interesting points in your posting!
At 31.07.2002 00:23, you wrote:
>Our past and future panels can only make the rules for us (meaning the relatively few people registered as members of ICANN At Large), not for everyone else. I would like to see openness and transparency as the cornerstones of this process. I would also like to see the replacement of the "at-large" terminology since it has evidently been co-opted for other purposes. Perhaps what is really needed is a concerted effort to invite Internet users to form their own local chapters which could elect representatives to an "Internet House of Commons"
>Meanwhile, unfortunately, it's all very well for our panels to try to make rules but the reality is that ICANN seems not to be open to even the minimal input At Large has "enjoyed" thus far.
I believe that the local chapters/local organizations approach
is the right one, and I also believe that we need an interface
for user participation between ICANN and the user organizations.
(That's why my ALAC proposal looks like it does, see www.alac.info)
>However, not everyone who wants or needs to use the Internet necessarily understands or wished to become embroiled in questions like how to operate the DNS system. Many of them simply aren't interested in politics, just as they are not much interested in non-Internet politics as voters. We can't expect the multitudes to want to spend hours debating the relative merits of various administrative or electoral rules. We *can* expect them to be interested in the outcome if it ensures fairness as well as administrative efficiency and the personal comfort of the directors.
Absolutely agreed. And we have to think of ways how the user
feedback remains representative, *but* reflects the fact that
not every Internet user wants to spend time on DNS policy.
Frankly, I don't see many alternatives to user *organizations*.
>Meanwhile, if all the new ICANN were meant to do was "guarantee ...transparency and stability ... at the lowest feasible cost", would it not be logical to turn the task over the the World Wide Web Consortium? It has an established track-record both on the technical side and in terms of making the Web as useful as possible to everyone at minimal cost. And just about everything it does is promptly posted on its Web site for all to see. I may not be enthusiastic about their drift towards proprietary standards in the interest of consortium members rather than Internet users but they have certainly earned the respect of people around the world.
I'm quite sure the W3C wouldn't want this job, and I beg to differ
on one aspect: Any organization which would take over that task
would -- if it is to be credible -- have to be (1) a *forum*
for (2) more or less the same groups as today, *plus* users.
The technical operation is not the (main) issue, a large number
of companies, research institutes, organizations and even
private persons could do it. The point is that they have to
be credible as a forum for people to get together. If there had
been a "natural alternative" to ICANN, that group would probably
have the job today; the only current competitor who seems to
want the job is the ITU.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com