[governance] RALOs without halos

[Danny Younger]

Patrick,

I appreciate your input, but let me discuss for a
moment the notion that certain groups should be
representating the at-large community.

When the at-large was impacted by the inability to
readily transfer their domain names, the domain name
portability issue was not championed by telecom user
groups, by consumer associations or by any other
group.  The issue was brought to the table only
through the persistant efforts of individuals (not
groups) that participated in ICANN's General Assembly.

When the at-large was threatened with a 50% increase
in .com fees over the span of the proposed .com
agreement, our interests were not vigorously defended
by anyone other than by ourselves.  We organized on an
ad-hoc basis, sent through letters to the Board,
lobbied Board members and wrote repeatedly to the
Public Comment Forum.  User groups of the type that
you describe did not rise to the occasion, but the
public did.

I trust the public to speak for itself.  I trust the
public to self-organize where and when required in a
fluid manner that gives rise only to ad-hoc temporary
unions that address a particular issue of concern.  I
trust the public to elect its own leaders.  

Best regards,
Danny


--- Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at isoc.lu> wrote:

> David,
> 
> My personal opinion is that Internet users (ie
> customers and consumers)
> should somehow have a say in ICANN and other
> governance processes. 
> Limiting the processes to those with technical/legal
> expertise is
> dangerous. This is called a technocracy. It would be
> a false assumption
> to consider that registries, registrars, RIRs or
> ISPs in any way
> represent their customers interest. They protect
> their business first
> and foremost.
> 
> If we cannot have directly elected board members out
> of the
> consumer/customer community, they should be 
> represented by telecom user
> groups, consumer associations, etc. We need a Ralf
> Nader of the Internet.
> 
> This being said, I do not personally think that the
> At-large process is
> the way to go.It has proven uneffective and this was
> by design.  I would
> rather see an end-user constituency made of the
> above-mentioned groups
> and designating one or more board members (with
> voting rights).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Patrick Vande Walle
> ISOC Luxembourg
> 
> David Goldstein wrote:
> > I'm not disagreeing with anything Milton says,
> however
> > Milton says:
> >   
> >> The only way to represent users is to give them a
> >> vote.
> >>     
> >
> > How can this be a solution? What users are
> referred
> > to? All internet users? Including those who know
> > nothing about how the internet operates? I'd be
> > worried if all internet users were encouraged
> about
> > the issues being discussed here.
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance