[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
rus, I am inclined to think we should move slowly on opening up membership
in an unlimited way UNTIL we understand how the membership process works
against a more understood or qualified database of constituents.
-----Original Message-----
From: rus@neteze.com [mailto:rus@neteze.com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 2:44 AM
To: George Conrades
Cc: 'Joop Teernstra'; Diane Cabell; membership@icann.org; list@ifwp.org;
discuss@dnso.org; domain-policy@internic.net; domain-policy@open-rsc.org
Subject: Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
i do not qualify for any of the categories of membership suggested, yet i
use
the internet and believe i have a right to participate in democratic
decision
making. probably i am in a very small minority of users. why exclude us?
aren't
basic end users entitled to have a say in issues effecting how the
technologies
we use are governed? admittedly this is somewhat revolutionary, and it
should be
as it is clear that other models of governance/regulation that are removed
from
popular participation (as the FCC in the US, example) develop eventually to
serve industry with few crumbs thrown to users, who are nevertheless paying
for
the service. in fact, the technical creators historically are removed from
decisionmaking, ultimately limited to serving industry thru innovation. i
believe that those of you that have a technical/scientific interest would be
well advised to encourage inclusion of the masses, as they will probably
support
openness and new creativity while business/industry interest usually is:
control
in order to maximize profit.
furthermore how can you turn away from the possibility, even if it is
REMOTE, of
encouraging the spread of participatory democracy?
rus postel
George Conrades wrote:
> Thank you. These are well reasoned thoughts and bolster my initial view. I
> think we should consider the staging point.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 9:51 PM
> To: George Conrades; Diane Cabell; membership@icann.org
> Cc: list@ifwp.org; discuss@dnso.org; domain-policy@internic.net;
> domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> At 19:43 6/02/99 -0500, George Conrades wrote:
> >Joop, what's your arguement for limiting to Domain name holders? Is it
> >simplicity or something more? If I am an interested student sharing an
> email
> >account am I not qualified to express an at large vote? Why are you so
> >concerned about enlarging the scope to at least the broad constituency of
> >Internet users? FYI, I have been a proponent of Domain names only until I
> >had the input of our International members on the committee.
> >
>
> George, Daniel, Diane and all,
>
> The whole idea is to move the discussion to this list. I am very happy
that
> you and other MAC members are taking it up.
>
> My arguments for an ICANN of Domain Name and Address space holders:
>
> 1. It is the easiest way to create a real electoral roll.
>
> 2. Low cost and simplicity of administration/verification (a tick-box for
> an extra contribution at the time of (re)registration.)
> 3. Real democracy has always progressed in small steps-- I have had much
> personal experience with systems that profess to give a voice to "the
> masses" ; it is an easy cloak for populist tyrants.
> 4. The Net is a very open communication tool. The interested student with
> the email account can still contribute her idea's freely and convince
others
> with good argument. If voting becomes the real issue, then there will be
> democratic organisations that can represent the disenfranchised. I am
also
> proposing that "all users" can be given a voice via petition and
referendum.
>
> 5. I am afraid that ordinary Domain Name Owners will not join, if they
feel
> that "it's all a sham anyway"
> To get enough real members is a major consideration. If the membership
base
> is too small, capture looms large.
>
> 6. Giving the vote to "all users" pretends to create that "World
Government"
> that you would wish to avoid.
> 7. It is not proper to give a vote to those who have no "skin" in the
> system. It may go at the expense of those who do.
> 8. The DNSO can be the vehicle for input from organisations representing
> email-only users.
>
> In the end it boils down to trust , I think. From my other posts on the
> subject you may see that I am afraid of membership manipulation made easy
> by using the conventional media (or large cyber corporations like AOL or
> MSFT) to recruit members selectively.
>
> I am not against an unlimited franchise, but i would like to see it come
> about in stages, as the trust in the ICANN process grows.
>
> See my proposed model http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html
> <http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html>
> Of course I could change my mind, like you did , but I have to hear real
> convincing argument from the proponents on all those points above.
>
> --Joop--
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/ <http://www.democracy.org.nz/> model.html