[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals
Kent Crispin wrote:
> <parts on which we agree or we know we disagree snipped>
>Not to *discuss* DNSO matters. But DNSO matters will almost certainly
>be a significant factor in the elections.
That's exactly my point: the AtLarge members will have the power to
elect 5 Directors (for the immediate future - maybe 4 more in the more
far away future), but will not (necessarily) contribute to the debate on
If this will happen, it will be a most welcome plus, but it is not "a
>Moreover, I believe that you are ignoring a very salient political fact
>while *you* may see the 16K ICANN members as "a completely different
>animal" from an Individuals Constituency, many others do not see it
>way. That is, it is a matter of political "optics" as much as
I never claimed to be "right", I only express my opinion. "Political
optics", if you prefer.
>> Representation of what?
>Of the interests of individuals.
>> For doing what?
>For installing candidates that consider the interests of individuals as
>their highest priority.
I admire your faith.
Do you really think that *all* the candidates for BoD will have in their
program more than just lips service to the interests of the
This is like to say that the President of the US, elected by individuals
, considers the interests of individuals as his highest priority.
Personally, I will reserve the right to continue this discussion after
>No evidence that they won't. Quite the revers, actually -- it is quite
>likely that at least some of the new board members will bring
>o fissues concerning individuals to the board level.
You are quite right on this, some will indeed.
>> And this debate is done in the NC.
>Most of the debate actually takes place in the WGs.
>> Therefore, this essential component of the Internet world has to be
>It is present. The presence is through a different mechanism. That
>mechanism is not perfect, but on the other hand, that mechanism has a
>*lot* of weight -- half the board is far far more power than, for
>example, the IP constituency gets.
>Think about it this way: How do you think the IP constituency would
>respond to the opportunity to elect half the board, on the condition
>that they give up their place on the NC?
There is a great difference between a body that has one main interest,
and the funding to pursue it (like the IP people), and a multitude of
geographically and culturally dispersed, mainly without appropriate
funding, non-organized people, that have different and sometimes
conflicting priorities, if not even interests.
The "individuals" will never form a homogeneous block like IP, or
Registries, or other Constituencies.
Their function is to raise problems to the attention and the debate, and
this is what I am afraid is missing in the mechanism.
As an example, individual users in the industrial world will indeed vote
in a different way than individual users in areas that have a different
development model (see for instance the debate in NonCom about the
different approach on the creation of new gTLDs).
In fact, this role of "melting pot" could have been assumed by the GA,
and this was indeed my hope and my intention in accepting the
Chairmanship, but this has not happened for a number of reasons that
will be out of place to discuss in this thread (but that we need to
sddress in the near future).
My question is whether a Constituency for individuals would instead
provide more direct focus on specific issues and would therefore be more
effective in providing input for discussion on DNSO issues.
Which seems to be an impossible task for this GA.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html