RE: [atlarge-discuss] Latin America and Africa

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Hello, Judith et al.

At 10:55 -0400 2002/08/12, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>By "influence" I mean a vote for adequate (not just token) representation
>on the internet governance board (which does not necessarily mean ICANN!)
>(Please do not interpret my postings in the context of ICANN or its
>supposed blueprint for reform etc.)

Thank you for clarifying this for me: in that case, we're not in disagreement here at all.

>> Am I reading this aright?  you're saying you want this
>> organization to concentrate on the ICANN side of things --
>> governance in terms of the authority over the TLD system,
>> registrars, etc. -- on the assumption that this will keep
>> liberty and language unconstrained for Internet users?
>
>Change the word ICANN to "internet governance" and yes, internet governance
>can constrain liberty and language on the net (as it does now via its focus
>on intellectual property interests), or it can facilitate it (or at least
>step back to merely technical and administrative management so it doesn't
>get in the way.)
>

You're right, of course: in the absence of means to provide more positive contributions, simply preventing others with specific agendas from hijacking the Internet by technical means would be an important contribution.

>We can't feed starving children, we can't fight oppressive fundamentalist
>governments - but we can work to keep the net an open platform for those
>who focus on those efforts organizationally and individually, to have free
>reign online.  And that means pulling global internet governance back to
>its rightful place of technical and administrative management (versus being
>a tool for oppressive governments, greedy commercial interests, entities
>such as WIPO, etc.)
>
[snip]

Agreed ... though I am still of the opinion that a purely technical/administrative goal is unlikely to receive sufficient support from a worldwide "at large" public to generate a worldwide democracy. 

I think an organization with that goal would do better to focus its attention on recruiting activists from the existing technical communities already involved in the open source, anti-DMCA, etc. issues who could more easily comprehend why DNS management is sociopolitically sensitive and contribute the expertise needed for that type of governance. 

It would make little sense to ask me (and still less the average Internet user) to vote on who is best qualified to make decisions about the technical side of things -- all we could do is try to guess who amongst the candidates presenting themselves is both competent and trustworthy, especially on the basis of CVs we can barely comprehend and a short statement which may or may not accurately represent what the individual would do if elected. It would be democratic in a sense, but unfortunately even less so in practice than the average "meatspace" election.

Gosh, I wish I had some answers instead of so many questions! in the absence of certainty, I can only hang in and see what the majority of the group really wants to do.

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once 
they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
##########################################################



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