[governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC

[Dan Krimm]

At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding the
>Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance
>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we
>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars -- literally
>who knows what...)

No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not
machines).  I guess you would have to identify natural persons through some
method other than purely net-based functions.  But really, there would have
to be some process of political representation, because you can't have 6
billion people effectively participating in policy making for a single
policy domain.  You'd never get through the email.  :-)



 No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules
>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship.

Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship.  Where did you get the idea that it
would be anything else?  I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I don't
believe that anything I said implies that.  This is precisely the point.



>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples
>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were users
>only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the other
>(and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the child in
>the one instance and the other members of the community in the other
>case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users" makes
>little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances is
>defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative.

I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities.  If an
individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in
collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the
Internet?  The use determines whether the person is in or out of the
domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual person,
because individual people enter into political representational processes.



>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of
>participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take
>fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably
>argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made
>and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to
>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual".

The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use.  The
political standing need not.  The point is about individual standing, not
type of use.  All users should have individual political standing,
regardless of the nature of their use.



>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against)
>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing highly
>culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain probably
>diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term more
>significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and
>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in
>Internet policy making".

It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a context
specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying "citizenship"
standing in a process of human political representation.  In politics,
natural persons have standing.  (Maybe "legal persons" also have standing,
but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or other non-sentient systems
are legal persons, etc.  As Wendy said, when we get there, we can deal with
it then.  So far there is no "Star Trek Lt. Commander Data" to prompt the
legal clarification.)

Dan

PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here,
unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of.



>MG
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>
>
>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working
>collaboratively, I would think.  They each individually have an interest
>in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet.
>
>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts").  Even when
>use is collective, users are individuals.
>
>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users.
>And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual
>account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet,
>that does not preclude the person from being an individual user.
>
>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative.  The goal is not to
>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the functional
>components of the Internet system.
>
>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in
>policy making processes, surrounding the Internet.
>
>Context shapes categorization.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a
>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the
>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of
>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a
>>well for the collective benefit of the community.
>>
>>MG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid
>>> then
>>
>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact
>>> is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since
>
>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer
>>> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements
>
>>> in this regard);  or it should necessarily include some sorts of
>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc.
>>
>>
>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of
>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to
>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as an
>
>>ISOC chapter to have a say.
>>
>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you
>>perhaps confusing users with email accounts?
>>
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>(individuals as collectives
>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of
>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections
>
>>> of individuals etc.etc.).
>>>
>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is
>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of
>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and
>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other
>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet
>>> governance be formulated.
>>>
>>> MG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jacob
>>
>>> Malthouse
>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM
>>> To: NA Discuss
>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>>>
>>>
>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/
>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for
>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet
>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to
>>
>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large"
>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with
>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name
>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting
>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and
>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests.
>>>
>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/
>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil
>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting
>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and
>
>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and
>
>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of
>>> ICANN Board members.
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>!DSPAM:2676,46280d81273382123721259!
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance