Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
>> 
>> Of course, only if there is a sufficient number of interested 
>> individuals.
>
>One must consider "sufficient number" in comparison with the 16,000 who

>have signed up for icann atlarge membership.

Let me respectfully disagree.
I was talking about "sufficient number" in the context of the GA members
, not the world's population.
The concept I wanted to put forward is that if we have, let's say, 100 
GA members that are speaking as individuals (while the rest is involved 
in one or more already recognized Constituencies), it will not be 
sufficient to have half a dozen of them pushing hard for a Constituency 
to put the proposal forward, but we need larger numbers.

The 16K ICANN members are a completely different animal.
I personally have no idea about how and why they came to the conclusion 
of being willing to be ICANN Members, but what I can say is a large 
majority of them is "a priori" not specifically interested in DNSO 
issues, because I have never seen such a crowd online or offline debate 
DNSO issues before. And it is fairly likely that we will *never* see the
 16K debate DNSO issues (but this is just my feeling).
Don't misunderstand me, I am tremendously happy that 16K people are 
showing interest in ICANN, and definitively would love to see 10, 100, 
1000 times more, but I have serious doubts that the reason for joining 
is to discuss DNSO matters.


>  One must also consider
>that from the perspective of representation, the atlarge membership of
>ICANN controls half the board seats.  This is far more
>power/representation than *any* constituency of the DNSO.  There is a
>real and legitimate concern that the atlarge membership already tilts
>the representation equation far to the side of individuals. 
>


Representation of what? For doing what?
All what I know is that these 16K or hopefully more people will 
(eventually) elect half of the board.
There is no evidence whatsoever that these 16K people will bring any 
contribution to the debate on DNSO issues.
And this is the point.
What is needed, is the voice of the laymenm the users, the consumers, 
the small guys, the families, the individual domain name owners, and so 
on, in the debate about policy making.
And this debate is done in the NC.
Therefore, this essential component of the Internet world has to be 
present.
It is obvious to everybody, I assume, that this representation will be 
minoritary in the NC, and therefore largely ininfluent in the decisions 
of the NC, that will still be "controlled" by the "big guys", and 
specifically the duopoly "technicians" plus "commercials". But the role 
of the Individuals, like the NonCom, is very important, because they can
 bring into the discussion aspects that have not been considered by the 
others, and therefore be an essential element for the completeness of 
the debate and for making a decision on policy recommendations that can 
claim to be taking into account the balance of all stakeholders.

This is absolutely incorrelated with the "power" of (eventually) 
electing almost one half of the Board.

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html