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

Fri Apr 20 10:03:19 EDT 2007

Dan,

You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is
some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my
"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and
significance of this form of political representation is likely to
increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it
continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and
socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay...

So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to get
them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility of
doing that... 

In this context then we are talking about "political representation"
which according to what you have indicated below:
	1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of
identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least
to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person"
representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New Yorker)...
	2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result
of this status but so far one without any definition of what the
attendant rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart
from the right to make what would appear to be one way complaints
to/about ICANN (shades of The Castle--Kafka)
	3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e.
that of the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that
use is actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases
collaboratively, through dyads, by communities etc.etc.)

(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political
standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the implications
of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is actually undertaking
the use), you are interposing what seems to be an ideological bias in
insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", when in fact in many
instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all (except possibly
through the for now, artifact of individual keyboarding).  

	4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the
relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the
problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first
part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that
there is one.

All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful
structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague and
ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to be
an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet
citizenship).  

However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation
being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably
no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some
more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current
admittedly extremely formative processes.

Best,

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] 
Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC

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
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

!DSPAM:2676,46283181273381517018951!

____________________________________________________________
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