[governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC)
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Apr 23 02:01:43 EDT 2007
Hi all
The discussion on what makes for the legitimate 'constituency' for IG has
been very interesting. I think that 'process' discussions on IG need to take
this issue seriously, because it indicates and demonstrates the major
faultlines in matching the understanding of IG issues by the incumbents,
with that of the majority of the world. This issue also demonstrates the
power of dominant vocabulary, and that of 'discourse shaping', in political
relationships.
I have been intrigued by the two terms - 'Internet community' and
'individual user' - which seem to form the basis - logical and ideological (
I know I am repeating this) - of the present IG dispensation. However, most
discussions try to ignore this issue, and I cant understand the reason and
the basis of it.... We cant speak about participation and accountability etc
without recognizing the basic constituencies which we are implying here.
I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what is
the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people directly
involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a major player in the
field - definition seems to imply so), or the current Internet users, or all
people who are impacted by the Internet (which is all the people of the
world). Without clarifying this, to me it is meaningless to speak about
'Internet community'. Unless the 'insiders' very well understand what is
meant here, and they have no patience to describe it to the 'outsiders'.
The second term is the 'individual user', which like Internet community, as
Michael also has pointed out, occurs often in official IG docs, and is
therefore important to clarify.
A user based governance structure, as against public interest, and 'social
contract'/ citizenship kind, is appropriate for some contexts. For example
is appropriate for governing the game of cricket internationally, where the
players, fans etc as 'users' are the constituency of the governance system.
Such a system was adequate for the early Internet - which was a mutual
platform of communication between a set of users. We need to understand that
Internet has come a big way since, and is redefining almost every social
structure - at global and local levels - in a major way. And each and every
person in the world is impacted... the governance systems have not kept up
with this change, and mostly refuse to acknowledge this fact. A good part of
it is just the natural tendency of people and 'interests' not to give up the
power they have. And it is not just about USG, it is also about ICANN, the
'internet community' and such.
The definition of 'individual internet user' as the constituency of IG -
which certainly is a progression over an 'internet community' constituency -
is very problematic. Especially since
(1) Internet phenomenon is growing in leaps and bounds by the day, and
almost all social systems and structures are impacted, and more will be
impacted, and more intensively. Therefore the non-user interest is as
important as of the user, if not more.
(2) As has been widely acknowledged, the access to use of Internet in
various ways gives its users a lot of advantages over non-users in
innumerable ways. This sets up a power equation between users and non-users
(lets not be completely insensitive to an outer world which is possessed
with terms like 'digital divide'), and to that extent the interests of users
and present non-users may conflict in many obvious and not-so-obvious ways.
So, before we do anything else, about the fairness, appropriateness,
accountability etc of IG systems we need to address the basic question.
What, and who, are the legitimate constituency of IG (as against what and
who presently does)? Without deliberating on this question we may be no
different than those who spoke about reforming the formal processes of an
18th century democracy without considering the question of who are excluded
from, and included in, in its citizenry - for instance, slaves, and women.
And we can be as satisfied and smug that we are promoting democracy and
public interest as those 'reformers' would have been. (Remember, in that
case as well the logic of 'they cant understand the issues well enough to
be able to participate' was used, which I see used in discussing the
participation of the laity in IG in many emails on this list itself, and
this is quite funny, to say the least.)
The 'Internet user' term not only excludes most people from their legitimate
right to influence IG, but even among the users, since 'use' is the
principal qualifier, it may mean to valorize a more intense user over a low
volume/ quality user (and in my understanding of the present IG system, it
does mean so, eg, see the preponderance of corporate/ commercial interests).
That to me gets implied on preferring this term rather than accepting all
people of the world as the legitimate constituency for IG. And in all ways
that present IG system works out accentuates this special, and often
exclusive, privilege, of some people/ groups/ interests over others.
Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize 'all people of the world, in their
various individual and social expressions, in equal representation' as the
legitimate constituency of IG? And also make an express statement that IGC
sees itself as seeking to represent the interests of this constituency (and
not the internet community or the individual internet user, due to the above
said definitional issues). I think we need to include it in our charter. In
doing so (the recognition of the legitimate constituency for IG, as against
the current situation) the IGC will be making an important contribution to
IG. We can submit this definition to all IG bodies, including ICANN, to
which they should be forced to respond, and make amends as necessary.
(Before that, we may need to discuss the concepts of 'internet community',
and 'individual internet user' - which are the existing constituent terms
the for IG system - among us.)
In recognizing the above constituency as the legitimate IG constituency, we
DO NOT hand it over to the governments, which I know is the principal fear
operating in many minds. Governments have been one form of representing this
constituency. There can be and are other forms. For instance, a global civil
society has been in existence much before Internet and IG came around. With
Internet and the information society, this form of representation, and new
forms built over it, becomes even more important. The concept of
'citizenship' has been evolving in terms of global citizenship, in
decentralization and (community) self-governance reforms in many countries,
in gender discourse etc, and is often in tension with, and in opposition to,
a strict, nation state based articulation of citizenship. 'Internet
governance and citizenship' debates need to align with these, as also
influence them. Keeping a distance from this 'real world', especially when
this 'keeping distance' is also seen to be operating in protection of some
vested interests, has not done the IG civil society any good. And to
reaffirm the principal point of this email, we can't make progress if we are
not ready to debate about and explicitly recognize the constituency we are
working for, and, trying to represent.
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 2:03 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>
> Then one final response and we can close it off.
>
> I don't believe I made any material shift, though perhaps we were not
> understanding each other initially.
>
> The core issue of "matey-ness" is precisely the structural complaint about
> ICANN's entrance into political domains in the first place, above and
> beyond the original technical mandate. I don't see how this could
> effectively be improved under the existing structure of ICANN. An MoU is
> hardly enough to provide genuine political accountability to any
> broad-based constituency.
>
> So frankly, the best course of action from my point of view would be to
> rein in ICANN jurisdiction to non-political matters and get rid of any
> need
> for political representation whatsoever inside ICANN in the first place.
> Then there is no problem of mates, either yours or mine.
>
> But given that this is not likely to happen quickly if at all (perhaps the
> argument will be made by some that there has to be some other political
> body to transfer political functions to, but I don't think this at all
> necessary in order for ICANN to recuse itself from political
> jurisdiction),
> the idea is that whatever mates there are inside ICANN will be working
> toward their self-selected agendas, and the reality is that the imperfect
> system is all that is available at the moment, from the inside.
>
> I understand how the term might be interpreted as ambiguous, but you're
> getting into a pretty arcane (and IMHO spurious) semantic debate. There
> would presumably be two ways to parse the term "individual Internet user":
>
> (1) any "entity" directly using the Internet for "individual use"
> (yours?)
> (2) an *individual natural person* using the Internet in any direct
> manner
> (mine)
>
> Bone of contention: is "individuality" applied to the person or to the
> use?
>
> On the face of it, #2 makes much more common sense to me, in the present
> context of political representation for natural persons, however matey and
> flawed it may be. ALAC is intended to represent the "at-large community"
> and "community" implies "natural persons" to me. The #1 interpretation
> seems forced, at best.
>
> I suppose that there may be no more formal definition of this term, but
> I'm
> still on a learning curve here so I wouldn't know that for certain. I was
> presenting the common sense interpretation, which I assume would be the
> preferred one in the absence of any other formal clarification.
>
> Perhaps in the spirit of "originalism" we ought to track down the actual
> people who wrote that phrase and ask them what *they* meant by it. :-)
>
> Or perhaps the current policy making process inside ICANN can determine
> this, in which case I'm sure there will be a substantial constituency for
> the #2 interpretation. I would hope that it would be large enough to form
> a majority.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> At 12:31 PM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >(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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/935e86e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/935e86e6/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list