[ncdnhc-discuss] Proposed Resolution

[Harold J. Feld]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 10:07 AM 10/3/2002 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:
> 
>>> What is that diversity?
>>
>>
>> Included but not limited to: institutes of higher learning (colleges, 
>> universities, etc.), public advocacy groups, public charities, 
>> recreational clubs.
>>
>> I have received complaints that the public advocacy agenda dominates 
>> and those with other concerns are excluded from discussion and cannot 
>> participate meaningfully.
> 
> 
> What is the record of their trying to?  In other words, where are these 
> folks?  This activity has been going on for a long time.  Why have they 
> not been heard from more generally?


I would invite you to peruse the archives for folks who have bothered to explain why they 


drop off the list.  Or scan the record of unsibscribes.

In fact, most people who get sick of this just leave.  Few genuienly
productive people who get tired of the process bother to explain.
Dramatic exits are generally the province of those trying to score points.

If you do not believe me and have encountered no complaints yourself, 
then vote against the resolution.


 
>>   This would permit those identifiable communities to self-organize 
>> and contribute to the ICANN process in a manner in which they feel 
>> most comfortable.
> 
> ...
> 
>>> What should the other non-commercial constituencies be?
>>
>> They should self-organize in accordance with the ICANN process.
> 
> 
> Self-organizing requires self-action.  It does not require a resolution 
> to give it permission.  Why have these folks made no visible effort so far?


Those who would wish to self-organize must first understand that the 
efforts are welcomed and that they have a chance of success.  The one 
substantial effort to form a new consticuency after the establishment of 
the current set met with failure.  Why or how is not relevant (and 
understand in advance that I will refuse to get suckered into a 
red-herring discussion of the IDNSO), but there are no indications that 
new consticuencies will be welcome.

I will add that one of the hardest issues of outreach is how to get 
people who are not here interested.  An invitation extended by the NC 
may well persuade like-minded noncommercials to self-organize, where the 
generic possibility under the ICANN bylaws does not.

Let me reverse the question: what is the reason for opposing the motion? 
  By your own objections, the motion is merely superfluous in that it 
reiterates opportunities already available under the bylaws.  Since such 
reiteration does no harm, and may do good, why oppose it?


> >>> What is the basis for recommending that they have differential 
>>> interests, warranting different constituency groups?
>>
>>
>> Complaints I have heard from those who feel that the current NCDNHC 
>> does not suit their needs.
> 
> 
> Who else has heard these complaints.  It seems unlikely that any issue, 
> that is substantial enough to warrant solution by forming a 
> constituency, is going to be expressed to only one person.
> 
> d/

Because, almost definitionally, those non-profits who do not think it 
worthwhile to participate here are unknown to you.  Nor is there any 
reason why disatisfied parties should seek you out.
By contrast, MAP works with numerous non-profits in the area of telecom 
policy, and I am a Names Council rep and known (at least in the circle 
that deals with MAP) as active in ICANN.  As a result, people put off by 
the current state of the NCDNHC (or who have heard complaints from 
others) do communicate with me.

No one has to believe me, of course.  Although if any of my colleagues 
here has heard similar complaints, it would be nice to hear from them as 
well.

Harold

Harold