Re: [atlarge-discuss] MISSION STATEMENT draft #3 - Special Attn. DOC/NTIA

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

Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Although by in large I am in agreement with your remarks in response
to Todd's "Two Cents" on our developing "Mission statement/Charter",
I am becoming more and more concerned regarding your Canadian
centric negative attitude towards the USG DOC/NTIA and America
in general.  This attitude has been pervasive throughout a number
of your remarks on various issues and subject areas and I would
suggest to you or anyone that such paranoid expressions are
not productive or conducive to making progress in this Atlarge
effort.

  I also have some concerns as to the DOC/NTIA's seeming lack
of proper attention to the stakeholders/users and centering it's
attention on "Inside Players" that may or may not reflect the
needs, concerns, and demands of the stakeholders/users which
are the driving force in ecommerce on the internet or which
ICANN is poorly thus far attempting to manage are self regulate
it's central functions and some other facilities such as Whois...
But to slam in effect the DOC/NTIA as a non-national or
a US Citizen is not a good method by which to garner or
attract the proper attention necessarily in every instance.

  So Judyth, I would ask you to express your notable concerns
in a positive manner to those in the DOC/NTIA as a Canadian
citizen yet a member of the global stakeholder/user community
that uses the Internet...

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 13:27 -0800 2002/11/15, todd glassey wrote:
> >I have a problem with the "everybody at large" concept which is what this
> >group talks about. If you want to only focus on NTIA then this might be OK
> >but otherwise ICANN's sole existence is in regard to domain name to address
> >conversion and the assignment of those addresses, so since only domain
> >operators and owners have an interest in that this mission statement is way
> >too broad.
> >
> >My two cents.
>
> Todd, if you were right about ICANN's sole activity being the handling of DN to IP address conversion and address assignment, I would be inclined to agree with you.
>
> However, ICANN's official role (not to mention the wider powers it seeks for itself) is broader than that.
>
> You can see it quite easily from the process by which top-level domains are kept artificially scarce to keep the price up, and application to become a registrar is made extremely costly to keep a big money-machine in as few hands as possible. In itself, the process of permitting new TLDs is a boring administrative task. In its implications, it impacts on every individual who  lives outside the industrialized countries and for whom a registration fee of US$20 is a large expense, speaks a language other than English and would like a domain name in their own language, or thinks that such decisions should be made by a wide cross-section of the world's population rather than the industry insiders most likely to be in a conflict of interest.
>
> Some of this group also has concerns about ICANN's role as a quasi-arm's-length entity operating under the aegis of the U.S. government, rather than an international body likely to be more neutral in the selection of registrars, approval of non-English TLDs, assurance that the Internet remains a stable and useful tool for all nations even if it might be in the economic or political interest of one country to disable another, etc.
>
> Also, I think most of us are aware that the original charter of ICANN specifically called for participation from the broad community of Internet users for a good reason.  The United States has a history of recognizing that taxation without representation is unfair, however convenient it might be for those who collect the tax. The decision to privatize administration of the Internet to a non-profit organization was not merely to ensure that a few selected hands get to gather the tax: it was also to ensure the setting up of a decision-making body whose board of directors would be drawn from all continents and elected by all constituencies.
>
> As things stand, ICANN continues under its new Memorandum of Understanding but has been advised that the U.S. Department of Commerce is not entirely happy with its behaviour in the past and will be watching for further signs that ICANN is turning itself into a body for broader Internet governance while unilaterally rejecting its responsibility to the whole community of Internet users in favour of protecting the financial interests of a much smaller group.
>
> My personal faith in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce as sole protector of the worldwide public interest is not unlimited. It's a simple fact that the interests of big business in the U.S. take precedence over the international public interest in the minds running the U.S. government: their job is to protect American interests, not anyone else's. It is also a fact that the current U.S. policy-makers have their own axes to grind and the preservation of democracy and free expression at home, never mind for the rest of the world, is very low on their list of priorities.
>
> It is also not rational to expect that wolves will make the best shepherds. To say that those who make their money commercializing domain names are the only ones entitled to control the resources is pretty much the same thing. They would hardly point out that *any* combination of letters could be used as a domain name extension if their income derives from a licence to register names under particular extensions, or that genuine application of "market forces" to keep prices down and supplies adequate does not take place by licencing a cartel to restrict supply and keep prices high.
>
> If one believes in a free market, the freedom of the marketplace belongs to everyone, not just the industry insiders, and the customer's choice is supposed to be freer than "pay my set price or go without". If, on the other hand, one believes that it is the responsibility of governments to protect the wider public interest by regulating the behaviour of crucial industries to ensure the availability of essential services and guard against price-fixing and corporate malfeasance, then the general public is the constituency whose interests are to be protected and which elects the governments charged with doing so. Either way, ICANN was intended to level the playing-field and keep the Internet working well, not to serve as an industry monopoly free of oversight or responsibility to the public.
>
> For me, "at large" means "everyone affected" and the number of people affected by ICANN's decisions includes not only domain name sellers and owners but also the broader public: today's Internet users (all 600 million plus) without whom the domain name system would be valueless, and the remaining millions who will be using the Internet tomorrow and thereafter. I am also against defining this group strictly in terms of making representations to ICANN: decisions about Internet administration and governance are being made elsewhere, too, and the broader "at large" community needs a voice in those bodies and summits and bilateral treaty negotiations which will affect Internet use tomorrow.
>
> Not everyone here agrees with my personal views (nor should they!) but I think there is a consensus that the Internet is a public good, not a private property, and that its governance should be more-or-less democratic, with all constituencies represented. ICANN has unilaterally absolved itself of the trouble and expense involved in democracy. ICANNATLARGE.ORG, like many other grassroots non-profit groups, is being set up to say "you can't do that" and prove that the 600 million also have valid things to say about how the Internet should be maintained and extended.
>
> HTH,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> ##########################################################
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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