<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] significant user representation
Hi Chuck,
I'd be willing (and likely many others) to accept a lower weighting for the views of the users speaking out on behalf of the public, IF the weighting assigned to the public is significantly higher. Despite millions of users, the public really has very little say in ICANN matters, while ICANN accredited registrars which number several hundred have an overwhelmingly disproportionate say in ICANN matters.
Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck
To: kidsearch ; Prophet Partners Inc. ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] significant user representation
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.
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.Premium-Domain-Names.com
----- Original Message -----
From: kidsearch
To: Prophet Partners Inc. ; 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.
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.Premium-Domain-Names.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Joop Teernstra
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: kidsearch ; 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.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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|