Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Direct vs. Indirect elections

[Eric Dierker]

Thank you Mary and Joop,

We are working in a developing nation trying to develop the IT&T.  The
costs
are too high in rural areas and the infrastructure is, let us say
developing.  So here we come to help make things better.  Well what came
first the chicken or the egg?  We market from the inside to the outside
and
from the outside to the inside.  But we finally recognize that what we
must
do is;
patiently increase usage and infrastructure inside to inside.  Demand
and
Supply must rise together and almost equally.  We cannot bring in a
million
new users without the infrastructure and we cannot pay for the
infrastructure without a million new users.

So here as there, for those of us who care we are working on our
infrastructure, the ALSC, and meanwhile working on our increased user
base.
We in effect are growing an industry.  Where we have a problem is
ciphering
out where to cut corners as we develop and where we cannot.

Users versus domain name holders is one such corner.  My dotcommoners
understand completely that for now perhaps we must limit voting and
participation to holders.  But we trust that when the infrastructure is
in
place we will be supported by the holders to be included. {I must say
that
the same is not true of the businesses letting in the holders and so it
is a
troubling time}  One thing is for certain we cannot go backwards in this
process and I hope this Forum acts as an anchor to prevent that.

As we have no real seasons here in San Diego I think of all of you
enjoying
your spring or fall at this time and hope you are prepared for the new
season, as I hope ICANN is prepared for a new season in it's cycle.

Eric

Mary Jaekl wrote:

> I completely agree.  Furthermore, it has been my experience that many
> ordinary users do not see (or care) what relevance ICANN has to them.
> They would prefer simply to see results that take their needs/opinions
> into account.
>
> After all, how many microwave oven users would want to join an
> organization devoted to the design of microwave ovens?  Not many.  Some
> wouldn't mind filling in the odd survey or participating in focus
> groups, but further participation is unlikely.
>
> Thus, although there are many users, I think relatively few would
> participate as at-Large members - rather ICANN would need to actively
> solicit their participation and opinion.  (And personally, I think that
> is an area where at-large members can have a role)  Those users who are
> would like to actively participate are going to be those who are willing
> to jump through a few hoops - and registering a domain name is not that
> big a hoop.
>
> Mary Jaekl
> Mary@Phibian.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:51 PM
> To: eric@cafeinternet.info
> Cc: jandl@jandl.com; forum@atlargestudy.org; Sandy Harris
> Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Direct vs. Indirect elections
>
> At 08:26 19/10/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >Yes it does Leah,
> >
> >But the issue by in large is not being ignored.  Although in principal
> >we may lose the first round for non domain name holders it will be
> >better than no progress.
>
> This is also my view. By starting to ask for the (near) impossible, you
> help guaranteeing that we never get user input at all.
>
> Domain Name Holders have a strong case as stakeholders in the DNS. They
> need a channel of communication with the supply -side in this
> industry, within an ICANN where their vote counts.
>
> Wider democracy where Internet users without Domains can have a voice,
> can
> come when the first objective has actually been realized and tested for
> effectiveness.
>
> In the non-internet history of democracy too we have seen an
> evolutionary
> process.
> Suffrage rights were first obtained by taxpayers, then by all people
> with
> some education, then the women were included, and only then  all above a
>
> certain age limit got the vote.
>
> --Joop