RE: [ga] significant user representation

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It might be helpful if I clarify my intended use of the word "activist".
I really did not mean it in a derogatory manner as some have apparently
interpreted it.  Regardless of how anyone might define the word, I
support the right for "activists" to participate in the process just
like "non-activists".  My intended meaning was simply "those who are
very active in the process".  The point I was trying to make is that a
small group of very active people in a group do not necessarily
represent the views of the larger group they claim to represent.  As
Joop pointed out, in democracies it is usually the case that it is a
small group of active participants who keep it functioning, and that is
fine.  But I personally believe that trying to evaluate the level of
represenativeness of any individual or group putting forth views is
useful.  As I said before, even if they are not deemed to be very
representative, their comments should still be considered, but the
weight attributed should be considered in light of the broader community
if that is possible.
 
I think a good example of my point is the ALAC.  For several years now,
the ALAC, as a committee tasked with helping to organize at-large
community participation, has been putting forth position statements as
coming from the full at-large community when in fact it appears that
they mostly, if not exclusively, are the views of the committee itself
(and maybe a subset of the committee) with minimal if any input from the
broader at-large community.  If I am correct in my assessment of this,
that does not mean that views from the committee should be ignored; I
just believe that they should be received with the understanding that
they are from a small group of individuals and not necessarily
representative of the broader at-large community.  Moreover, if the
views are the result of outreach and input from the broader community,
then that should be documented in the statement.
 

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services



 


________________________________

	From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of kidsearch
	Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:48 PM
	To: Prophet Partners Inc.; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation
	
	
	Now I understand the comment. Thanks.

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Prophet Partners Inc.
<mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
		To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
		Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:35 PM
		Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation

		Hi Chris,
		 
		My interpretation of Chuck's comment to you last week is
that he implies public comment should come from a publicly appointed
spokesperson(s) to be valid, otherwise the opinion only represents a few
so-called activists. His solution of empowering the public via more TLD
choices is only a solution for a subset of the public community and not
all registrants. Consumer choice is a perfectly acceptable solution in a
truly free and competitive market environment, but in a single supplier
market, it simply doesn't work.
		 
		
		Sincerely,
		Ted
		Prophet Partners Inc.
		http://www.ProphetPartners.com
<http://www.ProphetPartners.com> 
		http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
<http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com> 
		 
		

			----- Original Message ----- 
			From: kidsearch <mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

			To: Prophet Partners Inc.
<mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
			Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:43 PM
			Subject: Re: [ga] significant user
representation

			Ted, I don't remember seeing where Chuck
disagrees with you about the ability to comment publicly. Could you
provide a quote on that?
			 

				----- Original Message ----- 
				From: Prophet Partners Inc.
<mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
				To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
				Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:46
AM
				Subject: Re: [ga] significant user
representation

				Hi Chuck,
				 
				You said "I believe that giving users
more meaningful choices of TLDs has the potential of giving users, at
least registrants, a voice through their buying choices."
				 
				That is only looking at half the
picture, namely new registrants who have a CHOICE of TLDs before they
establish a website. Existing registrants with established websites have
their hands tied, regardless of how many new TLDs are introduced and can
be severely impacted by poor policy making or irresponsible decisions.
These proposed .biz/.info/.org registry agreements are a perfect
example. The user community needs a way voice to its opinions during the
decision making process and before these bad policies are formed.
				 
				A new registrant is like someone who is
looking to plant a tree seed and has many locations from which to
choose. On the other hand, an existing registrant is like someone who
has already planted a tree seed. Once established, it is difficult to
move and it becomes increasingly harder to move as the roots grow
deeper.
				 
				Sincerely,
				Ted
				Prophet Partners Inc.
				http://www.ProphetPartners.com
<http://www.ProphetPartners.com> 
				http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
<http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com> 
				 

				----- Original Message ----- 
				From: Joop Teernstra
<mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
				To: Gomes, Chuck
<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
				Cc: kidsearch
<mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
				Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:12
AM
				Subject: [ga] significant user
representation

				At 06:00 a.m. 3/09/2006, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:
				
				

				Chris,
				
				As I tried to communicate on a previous
post on this list, I have always supported a means of user
representation but have never seen a solution that has really
represented a significant sample of users.  I also recognize though that
the same is true of some of the GNSO constituencies, so it is a problem
that still needs a solution.  Simply creating a solution that gives a
new group a voice that is captured by a few activists seems to simply
repeat what already seeing.  That is why I stated before that I believe
that giving users more meaningful choices of TLDs has the potential of
giving users, at least registrants, a voice through their buying
choices.  I am not opposed to other approaches as well, but I believe
that they need to be representative of the broader community of users
and not just a small group.



				Chuck,
				
				The main reason why only "activists"
remained was the continued refusal by ICANN to recognize the right of
At Large (or Individual Domain Name Owner)  representation to become a
meaningful part of the decisionmaking process.
				The original 143.806 individuals (the
original ICANN At Large "members") interested to vote for their own
ICANN director, especially in North America and Europe were a large
enough group of registrants to form a hard-to-capture and representative
sample.
				
				It takes a lot of stubborn staying power
to keep on spending time and money in the face of 
				rejection and hostility, not to mention
character assassination and active sabotage, and only the kind of people
that are generally labeled as "activists" can bring this up.
				The rest is eroded away.
				
				For their  commitment to the cause of
the registering public alone, these "activists", would likely be elected
as representatives, if domain name Registrants had the incentive and the
procedures to do so.
				
				Democratic policy making  does not work
by taking "significant samples".  It is driven by small numbers of
people who care and majorities who agree with them.  
				

				--Joop--
				
				www <http://www.icannatlarge.com/>
.icannatlarge.com <http://www.icannatlarge.com/> 
				
				

				
________________________________


				

				No virus found in this incoming message.
				Checked by AVG Free Edition.
				Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database:
268.12.1/440 - Release Date: 9/6/06
				

		
________________________________


		

		No virus found in this incoming message.
		Checked by AVG Free Edition.
		Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 -
Release Date: 9/7/06