At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council (along the lines
>advocated by CENTRE) simply initiates and then guides this open, public
>process. There are very important commercial and consumer interests
>though that have made a huge investment in the internet and who want a
>guaranteed venue for participation. It is obviously important to include
>them in this process. If a seat on the Names Council gives them some
>comfort that the process will work better, then I'm certainly not against
>it. As long as the policy recommendations come from a larger, open, flat
>membership (a la the "General Assembly"), I'm satisfied that the process
>will work.
And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions, private, and
commercial entities hadn't made committments to the medium, there would BE
no e-commerce. Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
constituencies. There is no provision for public interest, universal
access interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
several other important constituencies that are left out of every proposal
(although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft, although it is
being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact it has been brought
up time and time again over the years).
This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
>
>This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who
>advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort
>(and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in
>our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council
>is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process.
The Names Council is still elected through constituencies, which I find to
be highly problematic.
>
>That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise.
It's not good enough for me, or for any of the other public interest
advocates who do not want to see the Internet carved up among business
groups.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
