Re: [atlarge-discuss] Legitimacy Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  First let me thank you for you very thoughtful and very interesting
response.
(More below your comments)

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 11:34 -0700 2002/07/30, eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >Please do not set up artificial requirements that meet with artificial
> >goals in order to legitimize any voting we may hold.
>
> I would tend to agree, but the legitimacy question is crucial. Many of us are contesting ICANN's methods because they violate the rules. By the same token, we hundred-or-so on this list can hardly constitute ourselves the At Large electorate or claim to legitimately represent them.

  Yes ICANN seems to not be subject to it's own rules, nor does some of it's
registries and Registrars...  This indeed negatively impacts corp. Responsibility
in the extreme as ICANN IS a public interest servant type Corp classified
as a Non-Profit.

  ICANNATLARGE.COM has some 900 or so members.  Only about
190 according to Thomas, are on this list, which in itself is a bit of a shame..
But yes, your point that ICANNATLARGE.COM can hardly legitimately
represent the public interest or ALL Stakeholders/users.  But it can
represent it's members which are stakeholders/users and be a organization
that can represent a hopefully growing number or percentage of
ALL stakeholders/users...

>
>
> >There are no rules.
>
> There certainly are, though there is a different set for each possible model. Lawrence Solum is, I think, correct when he distinguishes between the model where ICANN's jurisdiction is a narrow, purely technical one and the one where it oversees broader issues in the public interest.
>
> Personally, I would have no problem with an ICANN of the first kind whose board consisted of technical experts elected from among a pool of appointed national representatives ... as long, of course, as the rules included the normal disclosure of holdings which might lead to a conflict of interest, procedure requiring the withdrawal of a board member from discussions and votes where such conflict might exist, etc., and a suitably narrow mandate for the organization.

  This is a one method of a good start but lacks some fundamentals.  Those
basically and simply put, being that inclusive of any and all interested parties
in the policy and decision making for whatever scope that may or can
effect those same stakeholders/users...

> Were ICANN's mandate merely to maintain order when it comes to registration and use of domain names as efficiently and economically as possible, there would be no need to insist that it function democratically or even give a voice to national governments in its operations.

  This is dangerous in today's world.  Decades ago this method might have
worked for a time.  But it cannot work for long now...

> One would merely incorporate it as the non-profit organization which regulates the authorization of registrars in all countries and maintains the records of domains registered. (There would not even need to be control over domain name extensions, since
> it would do no harm to anyone if all possible three-letter permutations were legal and all authorized registrars could register any domain name not already in use.)

  There has never been a reason for restriction of TLD extensions.  That
has been a myth put forth by some within the CORE group that later
captured ICANN in '98 - '99..

>
>
> In that case, of course, the broader issues of Internet governance would need some other body to look after them: to me, the logical thing in that case would be to have a World ICT Organization operating under the aegis of the U.N., responsible for ensuring access, funding infrastructure in the LDCs, co-operating with the WHO in developing telemedicine and distance education, with UNICEF in matters of child welfare, etc.

  UN agencies for the most part have had very limited success and in some
recent years and instances been detrimental in their efforts.  I would not
like to see ICANN go in this direction...

> This theoretical WIO would have its primary mandate already laid out for it: the promise to extend Internet access to all as a means of alleviating poverty and improving delivery of education and health services in the LDCs, as well as to assist their economic development. In theory, this is supposed to be done by 2010; in practice, nothing I know of has been set up to do it. (The World Bank's attempt to monopolize development information on the Internet through its own portal site hardly counts!) It's a worthy and extremely difficult task, and the issues of equity
> between and within nations means that mechanisms for public consultation and elections in all nations would be most useful there.
>
> The mechanisms for both those types of operations exist and are not unduly complicated, though they bear little resemblance to ICANN before or after the "Blueprint reform".

  Well the "Black-and-Blueprint" for reform is not reform at all nor is it or can
it be properly called a "Blueprint"...

>
>
> >Our panel has done well and the new panel must do
> >likewise and be open and transparent and make the rules.
>
> 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.

  True.  But ICANNATLARGE.COM's panel or better yet the actual
representatives can set an example for others to follow, build upon,
and progressively improve upon as well as draw more and more
stakeholders/users...  The ICANN BOD and staff's "Black-and-Blueprint"
cannot and does not do that.  The difference is astounding.

> 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"

  Local Chapters for an At-Large or an Internet House of Commons is one
good direction that could be done.  Go do it!  >;)  But for right now
ICANNATLARGE.COM members would be better served and able
to serve other new or soon to become members by getting it's own
house in order...

>
>
> 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.

  The At-Large concept has proven that it can work and exist.  The
original At-Large which the ICANN BOD and staff did away with
due to some election results and process problems.  The election process
problems can and would have been corrected.

>
>
> >Internet access is not restricted to the rich.  The digital
> >divide is a result of rules and prejudice not access.
>
> On the contrary. The issue of the "digital divide" is itself complex. Internet access is not necessarily restricted to the rich, but access from one's home or office usually is. In many parts of the world now, there are Internet cafés or public access terminals which even the poor can use. In many others, even having more than the average income will not get you Internet access because long distance telephone lines are unreliable and sometimes inaccessible, never mind there being no local ISP.

  I agree with you here.  The Digital divide is not a bad as it is touted to be
and more complex than Eric seems to believe it is.

> Providing some kind of access is a very big priority for many NGOs since it can make it possible to do things like telemedicine, distance education, efficient evacuation before floods, etc. Needless to say, though, there is little prospect of a telco or equipment manufacturer becoming very rich by providing inexpensive access to the very poor. Under the agenda of privatization, free trade and foreign direct investment, the vast majority of the world's population are making major economic and
> personal sacrifices to ensure that the affluent will keep getting richer, I don't know whether you would put that under the heading of "rules and prejudice" but I'd label it downright iniquitous myself.

  Well I liked former presidents idea of spreading the wealth.  Unfortunately
that got preempted or co-opted in part by the overly greedy in
the Corp world including many within the ICANN BoD and especially
ICANN Staff...  Al Gore got played for a sucker...

>
>
> On the other hand, in more developed countries where there is some infrastructure in place (or even in a country as well-wired as Canada), while the affluent are paying for DSL or cable connections at $50/month, there are a good 25% of households which can't cover the basics like food and shelter and are certainly not in a position to buy even a secondhand computer and a limited-hours dial-up connection. (I'm in the upper reaches of the lower bracket, so I've got the used computer and a connection that costs me under $12 a month ... but I wouldn't have even that if I had children to feed.)
>
> 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.

  Very good point here.  However those of us that do participate actively
usually do care.  We may all not care about the same issues or about
a single issue in the same way.  But we do care I think.  I myself,
and I am sure others as well, often or at least sometimes seek
the input from those that do no or cannot actively participate
and don't wish them to be disenfranchised...

>
>
> >The monopolies are only what we as users allow them to be.
> >
> >Long live the dot commoner and shoeshine boy.
>
> I applaud the rallying-cry but must point out that nobody asks the user whether they want a monopoly or their opinion of how it should operate, any more than any business asks its customers whether it should exist and how it should be run.

  I strongly disagree with you here and I KNOW that I DO ask stakeholders/users
what they want...

> A given enterprise may or may not do a bit of market research to ensure its own success but it certainly won't let the public take a vote on whether its practices are abusive or not.

  In many instances or most instances this is true.  But it does not need to remain
so or become some with the Internet and with ICANN...

> That is the role of governments and of supranational bodies: to determine what constitutes fairness and protect the interests of the general public.

ICANNATLARGE.COM seeks to become a supranational body I believe...

>
>
> As far as I can tell, ICANN has done everything in its power to minimize the chance that the public good will even be discussed, let alone become the criterion on which decisions will be made. This is a terrible shame, not to mention an unwise decision if the organization has any ambition to be taken seriously as an international body.

  Yes ICANN has.  And yes it is a terrible shame...

>
>
> LBS wrote:
> >> [...] If ICANN does not provide a public good in the
> >> economists sense, then the question is how to regulate ICANN so that
> >> it charges efficient prices.  This regulation should be external not
> >> internal for obvious reasons of institutional economics.  If ICANN
> >> does provide a public good in the economists sense, then ICANN should
> >> be replaced with something quite different, an institution designed to
> >> guarantee the transparency and stability of the internet at the lowest
> >> feasible cost.  This institution will need to be international or
> >> transnational.  It might, for example, be governed by the ccTLDs in a
> >> manner loosely analogous to the the ITU.
>
> I'm not sure whether the "external not internal" means that prices are to be set by market forces (in which case anyone outside the more affluent classes in the developed world will find themselves at a permanent disadvantage) or whether it means an external oversight body of some kind would be responsible for approving ICANN's operating budgets to prevent the kind of personal empire-building which occurs when administrators are allowed to write their own paycheques. Either way, I am somewhat conflicted over this since on one hand I believe firmly in setting prices in relation to real costs, and on the other hand in recognizing that it's not a level playing field if you charge the same $1 to the people with millions as to people for whom that's a household's daily budget. Not being an economist (let alone a supply-sider), I tend to favour economic equity over economic equality.
>
> 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.  Just an idea...
>
> By the way, I'm sorry but I haven't been able to read any responses to my earlier postings since the machine I received them on crashed and I spent most of the day working on it without success. I will check the discussion on the Web tomorrow and try to catch up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth la pomme
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of
> them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever
> happened." - Sir Winston Churchill)
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de