Re: [ga] RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires Representation
At 14:44 20/10/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
Vint, I share your view that a very small fraction of the billion or so reported Internet users actually want to provide input.
I disagree with that. The questions are "what is an input", "what is its purpose", "what is the cost" and "what is the collection channel"?
The users do provide inputs. First in using. Then in the way they use. Then in what they are ready to pay. Also by comparison with mobile, cable TV, etc.
What is really at stake with ICANN is a lack of technical analysis. What is important for the internet is not so much the way it works. But the way the users think it works. The way it works has a software clearing house (IANA) to support it. ICANN has confused its role: it should have been the "IANA for the brainware", not to be a domain name "industry" association.
This is what is really discussed at the WSIS, a forum where the users can document themselves to themselves. ICANN could have done it. It still can share in it. But ICANN (and IETF) by their US nexus have difficulty to switch from "AmerICANN" to multiculturalism. The real issue is therefore deeper and simpler. We see it with the IDN failure.
The diagnosis is clear (Peace Nobel Price): http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html
The WSIS just tries to prevent us from the Internet bleak society.
The root of the problem is not the DNS root, but RFC 1766, 3066, etc. which confuse internationalisation (all the computers to speak an underlaying English) and multiculturalization (the e-communications empowerment of the persons' communities).
The decision is not at the WSIS, ICANN/GNSO/GA, etc. but it is to know if Google, Yahoo!, Verisign will understand their business interest as services providers (with 70% of non-English speakers). The future board of Unicode will be the real indication. And how the IANA will transform.