[governance] How do ICANN's actions hurt the average Internet

[Roland Perry]

In message <4A58E4EB.7B1E52E6 at ix.netcom.com>, at 12:15:55 on Sat, 11 Jul 
2009, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>> >> That is poor network planning, there was no need for it, even then. But
>> >> international connectivity is not an ICANN issue (it might be an IGF
>> >> issue though).
>> >
>> >  I disagree.  The ASO and the ISP constituency, part of ICANN,
>> >is directly related to these sorts of issues.
>>
>> The company making undersea cables is probably represented via the
>> Commercial and Business Users Constituency, but that's to discuss their
>> domain name registration, not the thickness of the copper.
>
>I agree that the thickness or the copper for makers of undersea cable
>has no berring on ICANN.  I seriously doubt and know of a few
>cases or incidents where such makers of undersea cable have much
>more to discuss behind the scenes with ICANN than just their domain
>name registration.

So you agree that many people don't go to ICANN to be told how to run 
their day jobs. Including ISP connectivity and the assignment of IP 
addresses.

>> Can you point us to a list of your members, so we can see what kind of
>> entities they are?
>
>  No I certainly cannot publically without their express written permission.

Could you ask them?

>> >> As an "average Internet user" I have little practical choice between
>> >> using .com DNS or cctld DNS. That choice was made by the registrant
>> >> whose content I want to access.
>> >
>> >  DNS is DNS, how it is configured is a completely different matter.
>>
>> Physical configuration is the main issue here.
>
>No.  Physical configuration is only one PART and not the MAIN part
>as hardware has not near as much to do with DNS as software does.

But as an end user, I have little practical choice in the matter. I have 
to use the DNS that the information provider I'm contacting has chosen.

And as we've been talking about complete outages, I really do think 
those are more often caused by failure of the physical configuration, 
rather than the software.

>> >> That seems to be more about registrants, than the people George was
>> >> wanting to talk about: "the average Internet user".
>> >
>> >Registrants are users too.
>>
>> But are a very small subset, and the objective was to discuss how ICANN
>> affects the *others*, who are "average users".
>
>Registrants are average users as well as being registrants.

Not to the extent that we have to treat them differently in a discussion 
of ICANN's effect upon "average" users. In fact I' not even sure I agree 
they are "average", but it doesn't matter anyway.

>> >Restricted trade that is not fully justified is legal harm.  Such harm
>> >impacts everyone.
>>
>> I'm restricted from practising as a dentist (I haven't passed the
>> exams). Is that harming everyone?
>
>Apples and potatos here.  A straw man argument does nothing
>to promote or justify a false premise and therefore is an illogical
>argument.  The fact that contrived and perhaps illegally contrived
>restraint of trade due to poor or bad policy and the implimentation
>of same IS a harm and may be an illegal harm at that.   Nice try
>here Roeland, but no cigar.

You could at least try to spell my name right.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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