I understand Jonathan's point to be that the interests of activist-Internet
users may not coincide with the interests of passive users, and that passive
users should have representation with all other interests that affect and
are affected by the Internet. After all, passive users affect the Internet
through their demand, for e-mail, for example. Also, these passive users do
actively use the Internet; they are not users of the right to affect the
control of domain names and their management.
The test for me is whether ICANN will serve the objectives of the Internet
better (stability, growth, fairness, technical excellence) having in mind
the interests of the passive users. I believe it will. Therefore, the
passive users' interests should be represented and the question is only who
should represent them.
Tamar
At 01:38 AM 2/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>This issue has been really troubling me lately. The value of automatic
>enlistment of members depends on whether membership is seen as a kind of
>"use it or lose it" thing. One conception of ICANN has it performing
>functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
>the needs of all internet users--including the lazy, time-deprived, or
>confused--in mind. (Not to mention future internet users, who may not
>currently be in a position to know about or want membership.) Another says
>that the "stakeholders" to whom ICANN should be responsive aren't all those
>simply affected by a decision, but rather only those who are affected and
>who go to the trouble to identify themselves as members, participate in
>discussions, vote, etc.
>
>I worry that ICANN needs to be thinking the first way, and yet even the
>most open conceptions of membership favor the self-selected, and
>particularly lend themselves to "registration drives" inspired by a
>particular cause or interest. If you believe that the voice of the
>at-large membership should belong to that kind of passion, the system that
>can be readily tweaked by registration drives of a few very interested (but
>numerically small, compared against a silent majority of "lazier" internet
>users) stakeholders is a system that works. If you believe that the point
>of the at-large membership is to represent the whole group of internet
>users--including the quiet--requiring self-selection could create a
>battlefield for control for which victory could be the company that manages
>to register all its employees, or the interest group that rallies enough
>registrations by its constituents. (This is wholly apart from any
>fraud/multiple registration issues.) ...JZ
>
>At 01:06 AM 2/8/99 , you wrote:
>>George Conrades wrote:
>>
>> Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me.
>>Geo.
>>
>>
>>George Conrades wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me. Geo.
>>>
>>> ...it's a good idea. If people registering domain names were
>>> automatically made members, by having a small membership fee deducted from
>>> their registration fees, it would help them to get involved in ICANN, which
>>> is to the good, IMHO.
>>
>>I agree that there must be a presumption against any impediment to
>>participation and I really appreciate your concern in this
>>regard. However, isn't that unnecessary in this organization on
>>the following grounds--ICANN's particular and limited purposes,
>>unnecessarily increased problems of administration and assuring
>>integrity of the electoral results?
>>
>>If there are only 1,000 people in the world who really want to
>>participate in these
>>decisions, why register 5,000,000 who do not? It is easier to
>>administer an
>>origination with 1,000 members than with 100,000. You can send
>>out paper ballots at
>>a low cost, if that level of security is desired. It is easier to
>>prevent fraud in a 1,000 member organization. And, it is easier
>>to detect and react to manipulations of the electorate (i.e.
>>organized large "turnouts" of registered but actually
>>disinterested voters voting a straight ticket).
>>
>>Thus, as long as ICANN is limited to its current purposes, is
>>truly open to all who actually want to participate and there are
>>no or only minor impediments to participation, I would not
>>automatically enlist the entire world as members. I would require
>>"self-selection" for ICANN membership rather than automatic
>>inscription.
>
>
>Jon Zittrain
>Harvard Law School
>Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
>Lecturer on Law
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is98
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj
>+ 1 617 495 4643
>+ 1 617 495 7641 (fax)
>
>
>
----------------------------
YOUR NAME HERE
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------
