Ronda Hauben wrote:
>This gives the sense that these are delegates of the Internet
>community. They are *not*. The Internet community is being
>disenfranchised by the whole process of the ICANN which is
>in itself an unauthoritized activity of the U.S. government
>acting outside of any legitimate channels.
>
>The Internet, however, is a global entity and the activities of
>the small set of people who can afford to globe trot around the
>world to participate in trying to grab what belongs to
>the public and claim they have the right to make decisions for
>the Internet community is far from *important*.
Ronda -- It's my understanding that the Board made its decision based on
all of the information before it, including the two formal proposals, the
Singapore document, and the formal comments submitted online. It was also
clear to me that, even if they're not posting, most of the Board members
are reading this mailing list.
But that's not meant to undercut the point you make here, which is that
ICANN (and the DNSO, the other SOs and the General Membership, for that
matter) *must* make on-line participation a priority. In advance of the
Berlin meeting, I would like to see further discussion about how to make
real-time, remote participation a reality. Perhaps the people at the
Berkman Center, who have been doing wonderful, experimental things with
on-line classes and webcasting, could assist us in that effort. (The
Singapore meeting was webcast, but we need to have a better way of moving
information and questions in both directions.)
I was extraordinarily pleased to see ICANN adopt a DNSO with a General
Assembly model, but if we can't make the General Assembly work
effectively over the internet, it will be (IMHO) a hollow victory. I see
the need for on-line participation as one of ICANN's highest priorities
-- because that's the only way that it can give the internet community at
large a vested role in its policy processes.
In my opinion, the success of the March 2nd Singapore meeting was based,
in part, on the fact that it was a face-to-face meeting, but you're
right, only those who lived locally or who could afford the trip (or had
the trip paid for by their company) were there. I don't suggest that we
abandon in-person meetings, but we need to find a way to enhance those
meetings with remote participation.
It seems to me we have plenty of time to ensure that this happens by the
Berlin meeting (which, I understand, may also include the first meeting
of the DNSO General Assembly). I think everyone would welcome any ideas
on how to make effective, remote participation a reality.
-- Bret
