RE: [ALSC-Forum] A query

[Bruce Young]

Kent wrote:

>The at-large represents something like 0.01% of what we might reasonably
>call the "collectivity" (*).

And why is that?  Could the enormous hoops ICANN required people to jump
through to register have anything to do with that maybe?  (The answer is
yes, in case you forgot!)  I imagine that if ICANN were *really* interested
in a true At-Large outreach program, there are thousands of volunteers in
this confwerence ready to jump in and help.  But it won't happen until the
public understand the importance.  The ICANN board has the position and
visibility to start that process and turn the "grunt work" over to us if
they chose.  They haven't chosen to do so to date.  In fact, they've chose
to hide themselves and the At-Large communmity from everyone very
effectively.  One might  think that's the way they want it.

>On the other hand, let's suppose that we did get a really representative
>at-large election -- let's suppose that we got say 50% of the
>"collectivity" to vote.  That would be approximately 150 million people.
>Just mailing costs alone for a SINGLE letter to 150 million people is on
>the order of $100,000,000 dollars.

Hello!  We *are* talking about the Internet.  Automated e-mailing would cost
a very small fraction of that. Maybe a few thousands at most.

>Of course, but ICANN doesn't regulate the Internet.  It deals with a
>very small part of the Internet, a low-level part that most people
>simply don't deal with.

Unfortunately, decisions made in that "low-level part" often radically
effect peoples lives and fortunes, and have societal effects far beyond the
narrow technical scope you consider.  For instance, maybe only a handful of
even the people on this forum (who are probably the more aware of Internet
issues than most!) are aware that the IETF was, at one point, seriously
considering adoption of a government proposal to add "back door" entry
points into next-generation Internet protocols to allow unfettered
"electronic eavesdropping."  That's as "low level" as it gets!  But the
threat to our cherished Constitutional freedoms, for which millions of my
Brothers and Sisters in Arms *died* to protect over the last 205 years, were
never more at risk!  Only a concerted effort by a few key people kept this
from happening -- like Jeff Schiller, who was quoted as saying "Law
enforcement was not supposed to be easy.  Where it is easy, it's called a
police state!" It has never been said beter!

Today technology is being brought to bear on behalf of vested interests to
try and shanghai through technological means rights and freedoms the people
of this nation have enjoyed for centuries, and for which a *legal* attack
would be rebuffed.  The idea is to buid the controls in as part of the
"low-level part," where no one can stop them!

Sir, I respectfully submit that the "low-level part" is where society is
most at risk of unilateral attacks on their freedoms, because the common
citizen doen't understand them, and is unable to detect them once
implemented.  ICANN has a responsibility to adequately and openly discuss
the impact to society these low-level decisions may have in a less-technical
manner, and let the citizens of the world decide if they are a good idea!

>You know, I have a radio, and I read a newspaper, and I bet you do too

Yes, but many people depend solely on TV for news today, and I don't
remember when I last heard a serious news brief on the radio!  As TV has
replaced newsprint and radio in importance, so the Web will (and in some
disciples like mine already has!) replace TV in importance.

>Sorry, that is an implicit contradiction.  If your view of what is a
>first class name is widely shared, then the name will be valuable.
>There is no avoiding that.

Maybe so.  But why should moneyed interests be able to have more say in who
own what name than the common citizen?  We should limit trademark
consideration to one or two domains at most (COM and BIZ are my choice!),
and let all the rest be "first come, first served."

>Right.  Go to your government.  That's what they are for.  That isn't
>what ICANN is for.

Really?  Tell that to Internet users in Red China, or Afganistan.

Do you *really* want governments to control the Internet?  I want them
all as far away as possible!

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html