Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #147
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 12 2000         Volume 01 : Number 147

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:10:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Jamie,

>
>I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is

>it so difficult?  Is this a case where people are trying to control the

>votes on the names council, and want business groups to have a 
majority?
>Or is it just the failure to get the constituency off the ground?   
>

There is not one single reason, but a set of different circumstances.

Of course there may be opposition by [some of] the existing 
Constituencies to have more added to the DNSO, because their own 
influence is reduced.
But this, in itself, would not have been a sufficient reason.

When the issue of a constituency for individuals was raised, that is 
between the initial DNSO formation meetings and Singapore, the structure
 was not clear, and many thought that the place for individuals was the 
GA, rather than a separate constituency. So, in fact, the proposal did 
not have the support it has now.
Even in Berlin, the straw poll taken by Esther showed people almost 
evenly divided among [yes] [no] [abstention].

Another component were the internal problems of IDNO, that did not 
provide an image of compactness: the same problems that delayed NonCom 
versus the other six constituencies determined the lack of recognition 
for IDNO.

Now, IMHO, the situation has radically changed. The GA repeatedly votes 
"for" a new Constituency. My personal opinion is, though, that we have 
to move forward from the proposals that were made more than a year ago. 
This means that new groups have to join the debate, and the "movement" 
has to grow. In particular, we have to show that there is a growing 
interest in having this constituency, and I don't see this happening: 
the only group that is active is IDNO.
We need to have, for instance, the consumers joining forces.
Another possibility is to get some of the new people, that joined ICANN 
for the AtLarge elections, involved in the DNSO, where they can play a 
role, bring new ideas, in other words, allow us to move forward.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:43:42 -0700
From: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individual Constituency

Everyone,

  I have been following along on the question of whether an
individual constituency such as the (IDNO?) should or could be
allowed to be a DNSO constituency.  Some of what I have been
reading is disturbing.  Is there some possibly reason that the IDNO
cannot be a DNSO constituency that would be related to any member
of that organization???!!!  It would seem from the tenor of some
DNSO participants that this would be likely....  Am I mistaken?
If so, please feel free to correct me.  And when doing so, please
explain why I am reading such as a possible motivation....

Thank you.
Bob Davis...

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:13:27 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Hello Roberto,

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:11 PM

> Now, IMHO, the situation has radically changed. The GA 
> repeatedly votes 
> "for" a new Constituency. My personal opinion is, though, 
> that we have 
> to move forward from the proposals that were made more than a 
> year ago. 
> This means that new groups have to join the debate, and the 
> "movement" 
> has to grow. In particular, we have to show that there is a growing 
> interest in having this constituency, and I don't see this happening: 
> the only group that is active is IDNO.
> We need to have, for instance, the consumers joining forces.
> Another possibility is to get some of the new people, that 
> joined ICANN 
> for the AtLarge elections, involved in the DNSO, where they 
> can play a 
> role, bring new ideas, in other words, allow us to move forward.

What you describe here is a marketing problem. One that, as you imply,
is beyond the scope of the IDNO. This would fall squarely within the
realm of the ICANN BoD and they have done NOTHING in this direction. The
AtLarge experiment was a fiasco. My Junior Engineers could have pulled
that one off better. If ICANN/DNSO/NC wants consumers et al. involved
then they will have to wage the marketing campaign and not the IDNO.
Otherwise, all they have is the IDNO, for better or for worse. Now if,
for some reason, /ICANN/DNSO/NC doesn't want to recognise IDNO, even
when they are the only one, then there had better be a valid reason,
IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is
a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
Simply, the IDNO won't.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:31:23 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Hello Roeland,

Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:

> IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is
> a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
> Simply, the IDNO won't.

Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not possibly be a
constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:42:34 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:31 PM
> 
> Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this 
> marketing effort is
> > a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
> > Simply, the IDNO won't.
> 
> Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not possibly be a
> constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.

... and how was this relevant to my point?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:04:44 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Hello Roeland,

Monday, September 11, 2000, 2:42:34 PM, you wrote:

>> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:31 PM
>> 
>> Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:
>> 
>> > IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this 
>> marketing effort is
>> > a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
>> > Simply, the IDNO won't.
>> 
>> Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not possibly be a
>> constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.

> ... and how was this relevant to my point?

If the IDNO cannot be a constituency, than it does not have to worry
about any such "burden."

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:32:57 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:05 PM
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Monday, September 11, 2000, 2:42:34 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:31 PM
> >> 
> >> Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:
> >> 
> >> > IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this 
> >> marketing effort is
> >> > a burden that no other existing constituency has had to 
> put up with.
> >> > Simply, the IDNO won't.
> >> 
> >> Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not 
> possibly be a
> >> constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.
> 
> > ... and how was this relevant to my point?
> 
> 
> If the IDNO cannot be a constituency, than it does not have to worry
> about any such "burden."

Then it wasn't relevent. My point was that no other constituency has
this burden, yet Roberto implies that the individual domain names
holders constituency, whatever that is, should accept a burden that no
one else has to carry. This is simply unfair.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:31:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Hello Roeland,

Monday, September 11, 2000, 3:32:57 PM, you wrote:

> Then it wasn't relevent. My point was that no other constituency has
> this burden, yet Roberto implies that the individual domain names
> holders constituency, whatever that is, should accept a burden that no
> one else has to carry. This is simply unfair.

In my opinion, you are reading much more into Roberto's comments than
is there.  But in any event, any new constituency that was not a part
of the original constituencies created by ICANN will have burdens that
the initial ones did not.  This is codified in the bylaws.

Right or wrong (and I agree it is one of many flaws in the entire
constituency structure) it is codified in the bylaws.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:47:51 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[...]
> > If the IDNO cannot be a constituency, than it does not have to worry
> > about any such "burden."
> 
> Then it wasn't relevent. My point was that no other constituency has
> this burden,

You are in error.

*Every* other constituency had the burden, and met it to a degree
several orders of magnitude greater than IDNO.  The IPC constituency,
for example, met that burden by demonstrating that it had the backing of
the large international IP organizations, representing a combined
membership of thousands and thousands of IP professionals.  The Business
constituency had the backing of such organizations as the International
Chambers of Commerce; Information Technology Association of Canada;
Japan Information Service Industry Association; Motion Picture
Association; Microsoft; Oracle; Disney.  The Non-commercial constituency
has the backing of ISOC (7000 members); ACM (80000) members; the
American Library Association, etc.  The ccTLD constituency has all 242
ccTLDs; the registrars constituency has most of the accredited 
registars. 

> yet Roberto implies that the individual domain names
> holders constituency, whatever that is, should accept a burden that no
> one else has to carry. This is simply unfair.

It would be unfair if there were a shred of truth to what you say.  But 
there isn't.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:50:57 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is a burden
> that no other existing constituency has had to put up with. Simply, the IDNO
> won't.

I appreciate the high level of frustration in knowing how a draft
application measures up against an unclear subjective standard, but one way
around that is to submit an application so far beyond any reasonable
expectation that no one could vote against it. It may not be fair, and it
might be a much higher bar than any other constituency was required to meet,
but how could the Board reject an application from 1000+ individual domain
name registrants, supported by stable infrastructure, who were ready and
able to pay their share of the DNSO expenses? I don't think they would, even
over the objection of other constituencies.

        -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:35:59 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 08:58 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Mr Crocker' s sarcastic implication that we should have bowed and scraped
>more, is... disturbing.

If I had said anything remotely related to your assessment, I'd agree with 
you.

Perhaps you would care to cite text from me and explain how it means what 
you above assert?

d/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:19:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 16:50 11/09/00 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is a burden
>> that no other existing constituency has had to put up with. Simply, the
IDNO
>> won't.
>
>I appreciate the high level of frustration in knowing how a draft
>application measures up against an unclear subjective standard, but one way
>around that is to submit an application so far beyond any reasonable
>expectation that no one could vote against it. It may not be fair, and it
>might be a much higher bar than any other constituency was required to meet,
>but how could the Board reject an application from 1000+ individual domain
>name registrants, supported by stable infrastructure, who were ready and
>able to pay their share of the DNSO expenses? I don't think they would, even
>over the objection of other constituencies.
>

Bret,

It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and put a number on
them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its rationale)  does not
come from the ICANN board?

Did the ICANN Board demand that 1000 organizations join the NCDNHC *before*
it could be recognized in principle?

Hurdle 2: Stable Infrastructure. What does this mean? An absence of
disagreement or public personality conflicts among members?  A Charter
approved by the initial 200 and impossible to change by the next 800?
What about ICANN's bylaws?   Is ICANN itself stable by your definition?

Hurdle 3: (the ability to share the DNSO expenses) is another one.
Little has been said about this yet. It is good that you raise it, so that
it can be taken into account that no Disney, Microsoft, CISCO or Oracle are
standing by to fund this constituency organizing and marketing effort.
And, since we are of no obvious use to them, no NSI either.  :-)

Does all that make the DN holders, as they have organized, somehow unfit to
ask for representation? 

What makes *DN holders* a constituency is the fact that they are at the
receiving end of regulation by other interests. That's all. 
ICANN has recognized this only as far as non-commercial *organizations*. 
A number of Individuals has seen the deficiency of this approach and have
self-organized into the IDNO. 
The IDNO and its structure is not *the* constituency, but it is the
potential gateway *for* the constituency, and it is the only one until
someone creates a better one. (Not an easy task as the last 2 years have
proved).

What we have petitioned (and the number of petitioners can be 30, 100 or
1000-it doesn't matter) is to be recognized as that gateway.

What you are saying is that the organization of this new constituency,
constructed by individuals from the bottom up, could somehow emerge
financially strong against all odds and be in all respects more legitimate
than ICANN itself.  
Is that likely?

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:25:37 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency, 
> > which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders 
> > constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering 
> > them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.  
> > [The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names 
> > is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in 
> > housing policy.]
> [...]
> 
> There is some sort of a (political, democratic) principle that those who
> pay (a special) tax have a say in how the money is spent.

There are lots of democratic principles.

> In fact I think
> democracy somehow started this way historically.

One of the major conflicts in the US Constitutional debates was the
issue of whether only owners of property should have the vote.  The
problem with that perspective was summarized in a statement I have seen
attributed to Ben Franklin.  It goes something like this:

    "A man owns an ass.  He can vote.  The ass dies.  The man cannot 
    vote.  Who owns the vote?"

["Ass" is an old term for a donkey.  The pun was Franklins.]

> Domain name owners pay ICANN a tax of $0.33 yearly.
> 
> Does this mean others, who merely use domains, should have no say? Of
> course not. But those who pay the $0.33 should have an extra say, I would
> say.

Sure.  And since according to NSI more than 80% of domains are
registered for commercial use, it follows that business should have 80%
of the representation in the DNSO.  But since ISPs put up most of the 
money that actually runs the Internet, maybe they should have larger 
representation.  But wait -- it is the registries and registrars that 
are the direct regulatees of ICANN -- they should obviously have a 
bigger say than they currently do (the registries originally suggested 
that they should have 50% of the representation...).  But the NCC 
argues that on moral grounds *it* has a special place in the ICANN 
structure. 

Most constituencies have arguments that they use and largely believe 
that should grant them special status in the ICANN structure...

The primary purpose of an at-large constituency, as I have used the
term, is not to give representation to individuals, or individual domain
name holders.  Instead, the purpose is *representational closure*.  By
design, it is supposed to give representation to *every possible* legal
entity -- individual, corporation, whatever.  The various entities 
involved would probably all feel that they were under-represented.  But 
*everybody* feels that they are under-represented.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:03:45 -0700
From: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Mr Walsh and everybody else,

  Now let see here...  How do you arrive at this evaluation given
the already known information about the IDNO, Mr. Walsh?

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Roeland,
>
> Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:
>
> > IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is
> > a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
> > Simply, the IDNO won't.
>
> Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not possibly be a
> constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis

_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:08:35 -0700
From: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Mr. Fausett and everybody,

  From my observation the bantering about the IDNO seems to
be more of a few people having a personal problem with some
members of the IDNO....  Some of these same people that have
this percepted personal problem are somewhat "Close" to the
ICANN board members, possibly?  Or maybe the DNSO NC
Members?

Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> > To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is a burden
> > that no other existing constituency has had to put up with. Simply, the IDNO
> > won't.
>
> I appreciate the high level of frustration in knowing how a draft
> application measures up against an unclear subjective standard, but one way
> around that is to submit an application so far beyond any reasonable
> expectation that no one could vote against it. It may not be fair, and it
> might be a much higher bar than any other constituency was required to meet,
> but how could the Board reject an application from 1000+ individual domain
> name registrants, supported by stable infrastructure, who were ready and
> able to pay their share of the DNSO expenses? I don't think they would, even
> over the objection of other constituencies.
>
>         -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:03:10 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and put a number on
> them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its rationale)  does not
> come from the ICANN board?

Hi Joop -- My point was only that if you brought in an application that
exceeded even unrealistically high expectations, how could it be denied?
You're unlikely to get any guidance from the Board, and you may face
opposition from other constituencies. Against that backdrop, your only
choice is to deliver so far above the target that any opposition is unmasked
as self-interested politics.

[snip]

> Hurdle 2: Stable Infrastructure. What does this mean? An absence of
> disagreement or public personality conflicts among members?  A Charter
> approved by the initial 200 and impossible to change by the next 800?
> What about ICANN's bylaws?   Is ICANN itself stable by your definition?

I meant something more mundane. A web site for information, a webmaster, a
mailing list, a physical address to collect mail and checks, a bank account,
and someone willing or paid to handle the day to day details.

> Hurdle 3: (the ability to share the DNSO expenses) is another one.
> Little has been said about this yet. It is good that you raise it, so that
> it can be taken into account that no Disney, Microsoft, CISCO or Oracle are
> standing by to fund this constituency organizing and marketing effort.
> And, since we are of no obvious use to them, no NSI either.  :-)

One reason why an IDNO effort likely will need many more members. At $35 a
year, 1000 people could fund their allocated DNSO responsibilities.
 
[snip]

> What you are saying is that the organization of this new constituency,
> constructed by individuals from the bottom up, could somehow emerge
> financially strong against all odds and be in all respects more legitimate
> than ICANN itself.
> Is that likely?

I think it is. Especially now. The At Large has brought thousands of new
interested individuals to ICANN. There's now substantial interest in Names
policy from individuals, which could be channeled into a new constituency.

          -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:34:36 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 6:20 PM

> It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and put 
> a number on
> them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its 
> rationale)  does not
> come from the ICANN board?

Actually, the real problem is that the goal-posts keep moving. Which is
exactly my point. In various organizations I have seen goals set and,
once achieved, they've been moved.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:41:21 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:03 PM
> 
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and 
> put a number on
> > them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its 
> rationale)  does not
> > come from the ICANN board?
> 
> Hi Joop -- My point was only that if you brought in an 
> application that
> exceeded even unrealistically high expectations, how could it 
> be denied?
> You're unlikely to get any guidance from the Board, and you may face
> opposition from other constituencies. Against that backdrop, your only
> choice is to deliver so far above the target that any 
> opposition is unmasked
> as self-interested politics.

Been there, done that, a number of times. Personally, I lost interest in
charter writing after ICANN Berlin. I'm rooting for the IDNO, but I have
little hope.

> > Hurdle 2: Stable Infrastructure. What does this mean? An absence of
> > disagreement or public personality conflicts among members? 
>  A Charter
> > approved by the initial 200 and impossible to change by the 
> next 800?
> > What about ICANN's bylaws?   Is ICANN itself stable by your 
> definition?
> 
> I meant something more mundane. A web site for information, a 
> webmaster, a
> mailing list, a physical address to collect mail and checks, 
> a bank account,
> and someone willing or paid to handle the day to day details.

Name a constituency that is up to this level, please.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:10:37 -0700
From: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Kent and everyone,

  Your arguments are entertaining, but rarely relevant.  This one of
your below is no exception IMHO.

  The Internet, and that includes the DNS, was paid for predominantly
by US tax payers amongst some other European tax payers.  All of them
therefore have and "Ass" (Franklins definition).   So, I am finding it
difficult where your argument refutes Mr. Joop's....

  Car to elaborate further maybe???....

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency,
> > > which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders
> > > constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering
> > > them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.
> > > [The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names
> > > is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in
> > > housing policy.]
> > [...]
> >
> > There is some sort of a (political, democratic) principle that those who
> > pay (a special) tax have a say in how the money is spent.
>
> There are lots of democratic principles.
>
> > In fact I think
> > democracy somehow started this way historically.
>
> One of the major conflicts in the US Constitutional debates was the
> issue of whether only owners of property should have the vote.  The
> problem with that perspective was summarized in a statement I have seen
> attributed to Ben Franklin.  It goes something like this:
>
>     "A man owns an ass.  He can vote.  The ass dies.  The man cannot
>     vote.  Who owns the vote?"
>
> ["Ass" is an old term for a donkey.  The pun was Franklins.]
>
> > Domain name owners pay ICANN a tax of $0.33 yearly.
> >
> > Does this mean others, who merely use domains, should have no say? Of
> > course not. But those who pay the $0.33 should have an extra say, I would
> > say.
>
> Sure.  And since according to NSI more than 80% of domains are
> registered for commercial use, it follows that business should have 80%
> of the representation in the DNSO.  But since ISPs put up most of the
> money that actually runs the Internet, maybe they should have larger
> representation.  But wait -- it is the registries and registrars that
> are the direct regulatees of ICANN -- they should obviously have a
> bigger say than they currently do (the registries originally suggested
> that they should have 50% of the representation...).  But the NCC
> argues that on moral grounds *it* has a special place in the ICANN
> structure.
>
> Most constituencies have arguments that they use and largely believe
> that should grant them special status in the ICANN structure...
>
> The primary purpose of an at-large constituency, as I have used the
> term, is not to give representation to individuals, or individual domain
> name holders.  Instead, the purpose is *representational closure*.  By
> design, it is supposed to give representation to *every possible* legal
> entity -- individual, corporation, whatever.  The various entities
> involved would probably all feel that they were under-represented.  But
> *everybody* feels that they are under-represented.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:13:19 -0700
From: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Bret and everybody,

  It is obvious to me anyway that self-interest politics in this matter has
been established already....  So why all this discussion?

Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > It is all very well to start quantifying the hurdles and put a number on
> > them, but what is the use if such a goalpost (and its rationale)  does not
> > come from the ICANN board?
>
> Hi Joop -- My point was only that if you brought in an application that
> exceeded even unrealistically high expectations, how could it be denied?
> You're unlikely to get any guidance from the Board, and you may face
> opposition from other constituencies. Against that backdrop, your only
> choice is to deliver so far above the target that any opposition is unmasked
> as self-interested politics.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Hurdle 2: Stable Infrastructure. What does this mean? An absence of
> > disagreement or public personality conflicts among members?  A Charter
> > approved by the initial 200 and impossible to change by the next 800?
> > What about ICANN's bylaws?   Is ICANN itself stable by your definition?
>
> I meant something more mundane. A web site for information, a webmaster, a
> mailing list, a physical address to collect mail and checks, a bank account,
> and someone willing or paid to handle the day to day details.
>
> > Hurdle 3: (the ability to share the DNSO expenses) is another one.
> > Little has been said about this yet. It is good that you raise it, so that
> > it can be taken into account that no Disney, Microsoft, CISCO or Oracle are
> > standing by to fund this constituency organizing and marketing effort.
> > And, since we are of no obvious use to them, no NSI either.  :-)
>
> One reason why an IDNO effort likely will need many more members. At $35 a
> year, 1000 people could fund their allocated DNSO responsibilities.
>
> [snip]
>
> > What you are saying is that the organization of this new constituency,
> > constructed by individuals from the bottom up, could somehow emerge
> > financially strong against all odds and be in all respects more legitimate
> > than ICANN itself.
> > Is that likely?
>
> I think it is. Especially now. The At Large has brought thousands of new
> interested individuals to ICANN. There's now substantial interest in Names
> policy from individuals, which could be channeled into a new constituency.
>
>           -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis

_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #147
************************