ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

At 23:24 12/03/2007, Avri Doria wrote: 
while I do not want to make any statement implying that nomcom
appointees to the gnso (i am one) represent anyone, i can
categorically state that they do _not_ represent any constituency.
and while i would never presume to think of myself as representing
'all people affected by the decisions being made', i do know that i
and other nomcom appointees do try to bring in the concerns we see
from this list and other lists of non constituency people who are
affected by decisions - i think it is a big part of our job.  not
that this is not the same as elected representatives, but i also do
not think it is the same as 'only constituencies.'

I have some difficulties with that. If NomCom can represents the ideas of some users they cannot support the ideas of all the users.This means that when selecting people they also favor the candidates representing that ideas.

My idea of a NomCom was that it was _never_ implied in the debate conducted by the people it nominates. I see some form of COI there.

As we well know the latter are effectively reduced to be nothing
more than powerless observers who have no ability except that of
making comments that may be disregarded with impunity and that may
not even be read by those incumbent vendors and industrial
interests that are actually making the choices.


i do not believe they are powerless or that they are ignored with
impunity or even could be. They are discussed sometimes extensively,
but i do not think we necessarily do a good enough job of responding
to each one of the printed comments.  i can tell you, though, that
the comments of the people who come to the meetings are not ignored
and often these 'observers' have motivated, if not monopolized, the
conversations on various topics.  and i thought this was a good thing.

You know Avri, we are not much interested in being "discussed". We are interested in the people saying they represent us to be accountable of what they do. Or to do it ourselves.

You should realise that we are on a very fragile status quo some benefit more than others. The situation is as simple as this: this will stand as long as we think we will lose less with the status quo than in forgetting it. What worries me is that too many do not realise this, and think that the situation will stand for ever, whatever stupidity or delay they may engage into. Changing the Internet, the DNS, the routing, etc. is something which is to be done and that the IAB/IETF is engaged in discussing these very days, under some real urgency. Even if you do not want to be too much involved into technical issues you can read the threads. You will discover what we know for years: users can also change them, and it can work better for them - if not for some big commercial interests. As it did with the users Network Group, then the users' IETF that stopped innovating when it was no more the users conference. Since then all the new propositions are user originated (NAT, MP3, P2P, Web.2, VoIP, IDNs)

This is not a political dreams, but a matter of efficiency, of industrial and financial return, of human market satisfaction. I really think that by the end of this year we will progressively agree that "you" (IETF, ICANN, NTIA, Unicode) cost us too much, in money, innovation, centralised control, and that you must go by (y)our IGF forged rules or quit. I would say that the decision has already been taken by many Govs and industrial powers. I suppose it could crystallize in Rio.
jfc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>