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

[Saudia-Online]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Saudia-Online" <hadi@saudia-online.com>
To: "ANTHONY ORDONA" <anthonyordona@excite.com>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Comments on Study: Must groups oppose
individuals - Thoughts about the ICANN at-large membership


>
> Hadi Bahra
> General Director
> Hadi@saudia-online.com
> "Assisting you to explore Saudi Arabia markets"
> -------------------------------------------------
> http://www.saudia-online.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ANTHONY ORDONA" <anthonyordona@excite.com>
> To: "Bruce Young" <byoung651@home.com>; <forum@atlargestudy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 7:47 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.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > ICANN already has a structure that incorporate every body who has the
> interest in the internet and its system of voting and choosing few of the
> directors directly by us the members is in place, what we are debating is
> the fallowing:
> 1- Having all directors elected by us the Internet users.
> 2- Member ship qualification to ICANN.
> 3- Funding of ICANN.
> 4- Role and functions of ICANN.
> 5- Should we organize or stay as we are and act as individuals. This
should
> be the first to answer.

Hadi Bahra
Hadi@saudia-online.com
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.saudia-online.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------