Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Message-Id: <199812182150.QAA03140@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu> To: gconrades@icann.org Subject: Decision on expression of internet for membership advisory committee? Cc: msvh@icann.org Status: O Content-Length: 8612 Dear George I sent in an expression of interest in the membership advisory committee which was received by Molly Shaffer Van Houweling before the deadline date, as she acknowledged receipt. Yet I haven't yet received any notice from you of my application and your decision on it. I have enclosed both my expression of interest and the notice from Molly that it was received. I look forward to hearing from you. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu >From rh120@columbia.edu Sat Dec 5 22:10:46 1998 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:10:38 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben To: msvh@icann.org Subject: Expression of Interest in Advisory Committee on Membership Cc: rh120@columbia.edu To Molly Shaffer Van Houweling December 5, 1998 Dear Molly Please confirm receipt of this expression of interest. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu -------------------------- I am submitting this statement as my expression of interest in serving on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee. The call for the membership advisory, at present, indicates that corporate models are being considered, rather than examining if there are models that have developed with the development of the Internet. My contribution will be to provide a perspective that has developed from my research about and participation on the Internet to the questions that the Advisory Committee takes up, and to also suggest the kinds of questions that I feel would be helpful to take up.(1) The Internet is a unique new medium of global communication. It is important that any effort to create a form for decision making or a membership structure for a decision making body that will be involved with the Internet take into account the new and unique development that the Internet is, and base itself on the lessons learned from this new development.(2) The Internet has been built via a scientific process and a similar process is important in designing any structure that will be responsible for decision making or determining the administrative form for how decisions regarding the essential functions of the Internet will be made. A primary concern I have is that Internet users who understand the importance of the communication made possible via the Internet, be able to participate and have an impact on any decision forms being created. I will strive to contribute a perspective that is inclusive rather than exclusive, open rather than things being done behind closed doors, and that welcomes communication from the diversity of users that the Internet makes possible, in a way that supports contributing to the issues being considered. In this light it would have seemed a more helpful decision to encourage all who wanted to be part of this advisory committee on membership to participate, rather than limiting total participation to 10 (8 + 2 board members). For example, the principle of empowering the relevant grassroots people to make decisions in a cooperative way, with other levels helping to solve any problems that prevent that principle from being implemented, would seem to be a principle that would help to disperse power rather than allow it to fall into few hands. What impact a principle like this would have on the conception of members of the Internet being welcomed to participate versus limiting membership via narrowly defined criteria is important to determine. I will try to influence how the processes of the Advisory Committee on Membership itself are open to contributions of input by users. The Internet was built as a result of good processes and contributions of government/s and there needs to be an understanding of these contributions so that some way can be found to build on the lessons of the past, rather than lose them. Notes: (1) I am co-author of "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" published by the IEEE Computer Society Press in May 1997. Also I have contributed a proposal to the NTIA which is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt and I submitted testimony to congress on this issue which is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt (2) See ACLU vrs. Reno, U.S. Federal District Court (Pennsylvania). Affirmed by U.S. Supreme Court Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com P.O. Box 250101 New York, N.Y. 10025-1531 USA (212)787-9361 >From shaffer@law.harvard.edu Sun Dec 6 03:04:57 1998 Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 00:09:59 -0800 From: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rh120@columbia.edu Subject: Re: Expression of Interest in Advisory Committee on Membership Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received! Thanks, Molly