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

[Michael Gurstein]

(I don't want to belabour this so I'll make my point and close the issue
as far as my contributions, with the following...

Dan,

You've shifted ground here quite materially... I started this discussion
by rather innocently asking if there was a formally articulated
definition for what I considered to be the ambiguous (and potentially
contentious) term "individual Internet user".  That term appears in the
documents and seems to be a term with some formal significance in the
ICANN etc. context.

The term used is not as you suggest, "natural persons", which actually I
probably wouldn't have any problem with since it would I think,
immediately require (or at least strongly suggest) the need for some
serious attention being paid to how to achieve "representation" from
those "natural persons" from whom representation is being sought or to
whom the opportunity for representation is being offered.

Rather the term used was "individual Internet users" which to my mind
and nothing I've seen in the discussion so far disabuses me of that
observation, evokes little more as a definition than ... "me an' my
mates".

And why does this matter? Well what happens if I'm not one of your
mates, and I don't really want to be matey or my concern is that being
"mate-worthy" by your or your mates' definition isn't what should be the
determiner of who gets to speak and on what issues and in what
structures in what may be a (or even god forbid, the) major determiner
of political representation in the future.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] 
Sent: April 20, 2007 11:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC


At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>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...

I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing.  So, one goal
here seems to be to make sure the representational process is
appropriately broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be
represented without going overboard into the realm of devices.



>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)...

I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this
context.  I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am
not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the
Turing Test...  However, I am personally acquainted with several others
on this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer.
;-)



>	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)

I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as
they are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups
and constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and
practices at ICANN.  If many of those opinions are complaints, it is
probably because there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment
the things it does right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously
room for improvement (and one form of improvement may be recusal from
certain domains of activity).  I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN
thinks it is perfect just yet, even its greatest proponents.  Please
correct me if I'm wrong.
:-)



>	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).

I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely
contextual.

The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a
representational process for natural persons.  Thus, natural persons are
the fundamental element of representation here.  This is where we start,
this is our "base set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent
comments).

We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the
natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those
natural persons.  So we are talking about the subset of all natural
persons who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may
be.

The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to
the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a
qualifier applied to the original universe/set.  Any use that involves
any natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the
natural person as an Internet "user".  I see utterly no reason that the
nature of the use should enter the picture in this particular context
(the narrow question of standing for representation).  The idea here is
to cast a wide net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct
interest in Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured
in some other ICANN constituency or advisory group" ...  context,
again).

You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be
sensible. At some point, the full universe of natural persons could
eventually enter the set of representation, because society as a whole
has an interest in Internet policy as the Internet permeates society
ever more deeply over time.  But for now, it's fair enough to confine
the set to those natural persons with some direct involvement with the
Internet, even if only sporadic, collective, etc.  Some of those people
will eventually grow to have more consistent access or more individual
use, but perhaps only if the right policies are enacted with regard to
the Internet, so the interest here is not only current but potential.
Nevertheless, perhaps for now we can step back from the full potential
which is to represent *all natural persons on the planet* with regard to
Internet policy.

(Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken.  I am reluctant
about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it
may have to be dealt with somehow.  Of course, they could get their own
separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.)



>	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.

I hope my comments directly above clarify that.



>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.

Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of
thing in the first place, and left all of the political considerations
to other forums.  I agree that the representational structure currently
at large at ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that
could ever be fixed under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN
is still a private corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to
any form of genuine political representation in the first place.

So I do agree with your last sentence:  Given the current ICANN
structure, there is no obvious way to create a truly representative
structure of political representation inside ICANN, and it will
definitely be self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the
corporate side are equally self-selected, for example).

So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as
well, even yourself):

 * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at
ICANN to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable
policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's
consideration in the first place.

 * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political
structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this
Framework Convention idea, etc.).

I see more agreement here than disagreement.  I hope you understand my
stance with regard to "Internet users" better now.  No need to make
things more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier.

Best,
Dan


>
>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
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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:2676,46290b8f273386332510249!

____________________________________________________________
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