Re: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on Study: Must groups oppose individuals - Thoughts about the ICANN at-large membership

[Diane Cabell]

Other arguments for an open ALM:

Who represents the outsiders trying to get in...such as the people who
cannot become domain name owners because of restrictions (expense, language,
payment technology) in registration policy?
What about the impact of IP address policy on user access?
How can users input on protocols that may be introduced (impacting on
privacy or proprietary rights, for example)?
What about the fact that the users of the Internet pay for more of its costs
as consumers (of website content, e-commerce, ISP access) than do domain
name owners who presently only support the costs of ICANN?

ICANN's charter is not limited to domain names.  Why should user
representation be limited in such a way?

Domain name ownership offers a handy distributed process for registration
and might presumably reduce the costs of membership somewhat.  Personally,
I'd rather pay a membership fee directly as an At Large Member, rather than
have the voice of general users deleted from ICANN's forum.

Diane Cabell
Harvard Law School



----- Original Message -----
From: "ANTHONY ORDONA" <anthonyordona@excite.com>
To: "Bruce Young" <byoung651@home.com>; <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on Study: Must groups oppose
individuals - Thoughts about the ICANN at-large membership


>
>
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:31:03 -0700, Bruce Young wrote:
>
> >
> >  Comments on Study: Must groups oppose individuals - Thoughts about the
> ICANN
> >  at-large membership
> >  <http://www.connected.org/govern/ICANN-Zurich.html>
> >
> >  >It would be easy enough to decide that the group should include only
> those
> >  people who are domain name owners. This idea is currently under
> >  >discussion within the Domain Name Support Organisation (DNSO).
However,
> >  this exclusive definition apparently leaves some dissatisfaction
> >  >is the "at-large" group remains on the cards. One person asked me,
"What
> >  about those people who are interested and willing to participate in
> >  >the process but who do not own a domain name?" You could of course
> define
> >  membership in terms of interest. Tacitly, this is what ICANN
> >  >is done. If you show interest by applying to join the at-large
> membership
> >  and you have access to the Internet because the process is only
> >  >accessible via the Internet, then you can belong and vote.
> >
> >  Yes.  The stakes are too high to limit the @Large community to only
those
> >  who hold a domain name.  For every one of these, there are thousands of
> >  Internet users whose lives and futures will be directly affected by
> >  decisions made by this body.  They deserve a voice.
> >
> >  >There is no satisfactory global organisation of users of the Internet.
> >
> >  That is what we hope the @Large community can become.
> >
> >  >Maybe the notion of "Internet user" is no longer a sufficiently strong
> >  criterion for people to identify with it. Would you join an electricity
> >  users'
> >  >or a water users' organisation?
> >
> >  Actually, as a voting citizen and taxpayer in this country, I already
> have a
> >  great deal to say about how public utilities are managed, and direct
> redress
> >  through city council meetings, public utility council meetings, etc.,
if
> I
> >  disagree with that management.  As is implied in this statement, in the
> >  future continuous, reliable access to the Internet is going to be just
as
> >  critical to the safety and happiness of our lives as the other public
> >  utilities mentioned.  Internet users need a voice in how the Internet
is
> >  managed.  The @Large community is our best shot at one.
> >
> >  >Is there not a fundamental contradiction in wishing to "organise"
people
> >  who seek to act in their own name as individuals, as free valences?
> >
> >  I disagree.  Every citizen in this country has their own list of
issues!
> >  But we join interest groups.  We form coalitions.  We join together to
> >  protest.  We talk to journalists.  We write, call and e-mail our
elected
> >  officials.  We attend government meetings and complain.  We vote for
> things
> >  we approve of, and against things we don't.  Eventually, out of all
these
> >  disparate voices expressing their views, convincing others of the
> rightness
> >  of their concern, and exercising their right to vote, comes policies,
> laws
> >  and sometimes great changes to society.  This process is called
> consensus.
> >  It is the core of democracy.  And it should be the at the core of how
> ICANN
> >  works as well.  That is the role I envision @Large playing.
> >
> >
> >  Bruce Young
> >  Portland, Oregon
> >  byoung651@home.com
> >  http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html
> >
> >
> >  << File Attachment Removed: "application/ms-tnef;
> >  name="winmail.dat"" >>
> -------------------------------------------------
> As a new person to this forum I have read most of the comments posted on
> this forum with interest.  Mr.Young's comments hit straight to the issues
> that I feel are important.  Unless ICANN includes everybody who has a
stake
> in the internet be they supporting organizations or users,it will not be a
> body that is representative of the internet community.  It is important
that
> ICANN understand that fact and come up with a structure that will
> incorporate everybody that has a interest in the internet.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
>
>