Kilnam and all,
I too agree with Karl here. But it seems that a very few of the pNC
and those in the Wg-d?, "Outreach" and the DNSO list Admin.
are not. This has been made very evident in that still the DNSO
GA list is still not allowing several folks that are members of that list
cannot post to it despite many requests to fix this problem. Given this
how can the pNC or the DNSO expect that others that are yet to become
involved actively would do so given this lack of ability to manage a simple
mailing list?
We also know from Mike Roberts own public statements that the ICANN
(Initial?) Interim Board is certainly not interested in reality in having
a large number of participants in this process.
Kilnam Chon wrote:
> karl and all,
>
> i agree with karl that we have to consider the following population(silent
> majority) who would join the internet community in the future;
>
> 1. 6 billion people in the world. most of them(over 97%) are not using the
> internet now, but many would use the internet in the coming years.
>
> 2. 150~200 million internet users. most of them are not reprsented at dnso;
> neither ga nor constituencies.
>
> this is more than what we are working at committee E: global awareness and
> outreach.
>
> chon
>
> On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 03:12:27PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > > > The NC is the elected body - elected by the Constituencies - to
> > > > > administer/manage the affairs of the DNSO, and to act as the channel to
> > > > > the Board.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, but there are many who do not feel that they have a constituency for
> > > > their interests. So we need to be careful not to think that the NC is
> > > > perceived by all as being a broad-based entity.
> >
> > > Tell me more. Is the issue the Individual Domain Name Holders
> > > constituency - which I support - or something else ?
> >
> > Something else... (And I really appreciate that you are asking. It's a
> > nice change from the confrontational politics we all seem to be sucumbing
> > to.)
> >
> > (As everyone may or may not know, the IDNO is recovering from some very
> > painful growing pains and is organizally somewhat under the weather.
> > (How's that for euphemisms? ;-) In any case, I expect it to recover.)
> >
> > But the IDNO isn't the issue (although it is part of it.) (And I might
> > add that the IDNO is very concerned about the thought that it might have
> > to raise several thousands of dollars in order pay DNSO constituency
> > fees.)
> >
> > We really ought to recognize that the 7 constituencies represent a
> > snapshot of what someone thought are important DNS interest groups.
> >
> > But as we have seen there are several kinds of gaps in that coverage.
> >
> > First, there's the issue that is near to my heart, that of finding a place
> > for individuals - and not merely ones who "own" domain names (that's the
> > IDNO) but also for those who actually use domain names. This is a
> > somewhat vague group, and their interest is mainly formed from notions of
> > ease of use of the net, but there is also a large interest in terms of
> > "opportunity value". I personally feel that there ought to be a voice to
> > represent those who could wake up one day and say "hey, I'd like to do
> > something on the net and I need some name to put onto my Internet flag".
> >
> > A case in point is "yahoo.com" - it started life as a hobby by a couple of
> > Stanford students. Another example of "opportunity" interest is indicated
> > by eBay.com - it started out as someone's hobby collecting Pez dispensors.
> >
> > An additional aspect of that somewhat vague concern is that of the yet
> > unspoken needs of those people who live in the yet underdeveloped parts of
> > the world. I'm very concerned that when this new medium finally is widely
> > deployed everywhere that people in those nations don't wake up to discover
> > that they are too late and that all the good things have been pre-empted
> > or taken. Perhaps I'm being condescending or paternalistic, but I feel
> > that the DNSO really needs to actively encourage advocates of those
> > communities which are not yet today on the net. I don't know how to do
> > that very well, but I think having a wide open door with a big "welcome"
> > sign wouldn't hurt. And I suggest that our current constituency scheme
> > presents a rather contrary image.
> >
> >
> > Another group that seems to have been left out are small businesses. They
> > are swamped by the big guys. And there may well be a strong
> > differentiation of interest between local business that indend to stay
> > local and local businesses that want to use the net to engage in worldwide
> > trade.
> >
> > Also, there is a skewing even within the chartered constituencies. For
> > instance, intellectual property is important to two groups - those who
> > "own" the property and those who use it. (We often forget that the legal
> > foundation of marks contains a strong element of protecting the consumer
> > of goods and services.) Tand there is a tension between the needs of
> > those who own trademarks and the consumers of goods and services that
> > those marks identify and distinguish: mark owners generally want the most
> > broad application of their mark while consumers needs are often best
> > protected by highly focused marks. And the concepts of
> > dilution/tarnishment are not necessarily in the interest of those who
> > consume marked goods and services.
> >
> > Yet, the IP representation in the DNSO is primarly representative of those
> > who own marks rather than those who consume marked goods.
> >
> > Also, lumping churches, schools, community groups, political parties,
> > artists, free-software-writers, trade unions, local governments etc under
> > the single umbrella of "non-commercial" both under-represents those groups
> > and also mixes folks who do not necessarily share a common point of view.
> >
> > (As a case in point - the theatre group I do volunteer work for is a
> > non-profit corporation. Yet it has a budget of several million dollars a
> > year, employees a significant full-time staff, leases several buildings,
> > and engages in internet, print, and media advertising. Its point of view
> > is in many cases more aligned with business interests than with a
> > child-protection group. Yet both are forced into the non-commercial
> > constituency.)
> >
> > I would personally have preferred not to have pre-formed constituencies,
> > but rather allow coalitions to form, evolve, and disolve over time.
> >
> > Finally, the DNSO really does have a strange balance of groupings. Where,
> > for example, is a place for those who write (and often give away) Domain
> > Name software?
> >
> > And why should all non-commercial groups be lumped into one bucket while
> > registries/registrars are microscopically subdivided so that, as a net,
> > they get multiple constituencies?
> >
> > There is, of course, no perfect structure that everyone is going to agree
> > to. But the current form of the DNSO is seen by a significant number of
> > people (and organizations) as being a very exclusive club.
> >
> > I submit that it is likely that DNS policy is going to be subjected to
> > political review in various nations. I'm hoping that the work the DNSO
> > does will be wise and good. And if it is, I would hope that it not be
> > torn down or fragmented because of opposition by those who are opponents
> > mainly because they were not allowed to participate fully in the
> > decisions.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
