Re: "stakeholders" was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>]

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:31:16PM -0700,
 Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> May I suggest that we forever drop the word "stakeholders".

Why not, I agree with you that, in theory, everyone on earth is
affected by the Internet (even those without connection because, for
instance, a decision by ICANN/RIR/IETF can affect wether they will get
a connection one day or not).

But I agree with Leah Gallegos that, in practice, not everyone is
equally interested and eager to participate. It is very common to
restrict voting to people that show a marked interest (you do not
suggest that the IETF follows the rules of a normal democracy,
although its decisions can affect everybody on earth).
 
Speaking about IETF, it is strange that you criticize ICANN on the
ground of restricted voting and that you support the RIRs which are
much worse on that respect. Because of a "they only deal with
technical issues" bs^H^Hreasoning?

> If truth be told, *everyone* on the planet is affected by the internet, 
> everyone has a stake in the internet. 

So, the issue of who should vote is clear, at last (a problem that
plagues every Internet governance proposal and that your proposal
solves nicely). Every citizen. Oh, by the way, we already have a
method for the representation of "everybody", of "the people". It is
embedded in the constitutions of the various countries. So, you
suggest we drop ICANN in favor of elected bodies (the name of these
bodies start with a 'g')?