> > It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role whatsoever
> > in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
>
> Well, philosophically that's a good position. Unfortunately, it's not much
> use in determining a membership for the ICANN and its SOs.
I disagree. If an application is received, and it is from a human being,
and that human is not already a member, then that person gets a membership
card.
> Do you deny that
> people working in registries, ccTLD NICs, telcos, Internet user businesses,
> ISPs, etc. should be members of the DNSO and of ICANN?
The people can, of course, join groups. But these people vote as people.
The companies or businesses they work for shouldn't vote.
One person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
And of course, those registries, ISPs, etc can write papers, send mail,
etc to try to convince those voting people of the merits, if any, of those
groups' positions.
> I don't think anyone, with the exception of the trademark groups (whose
> lawyers probably should not even be allowed as members) has seriously
> suggested giving the organizations themselves a vote.
You should look at the PSO proposal -- it gives 100% of the effective
power [as measured by the ability to appoint the 3 board seats to ICANN's
board] to the IETF as an organization.
You should also reflect on the fact that the original ICANN proposals
staunchly refused to articulate individual membership or even a membership
at all.
What is happening is that organizational interests are quite strongly
pushing for institutional roles and are merely throwing out a bone of a
class of individual membership as a pacifier.
> They are the format
> through which the individuals are filtered for membership in the
> constitutencies that represent their interests. You would rather that there
> were no constitutencies? Okay, but it changes very little.
No, No, No. There are constituencies. They form, they die, they evolve.
They even form organizations to share costs and concert their efforts.
But the consituencies should exercise power through the individual vote.
By building in "classes" one is arbitrarily judging what the constuencies
are and what their relative power is.
It is far better to let the system evolve and flow rather than to
predefine power groupings.
> > But it is not fine to pre-build in a power for trademark folks that is not
> > based on anything more than a guess as to their relative strength at some
> > arbitrary point in time.
>
> That may be true as regards the trademark groups, but it's much less a
> propos of the operators of the DNS. Their relative strength needn't be
> guessed at. The Internet can't function without them. They are the Internet.
What is the "relative strength" that should be assigned to "DNS
operators"?
Why should "DNS Operators" get N votes or board positions on an SO? The
choice of "N" is arbitrary.
Rather, let the DNS operators try to convince themselves and others of the
merits of their positions and vote accordingly.
Moreover, why should we believe that "DNS Operators" even form a community
of common interest? They might, they might not. Does NSI share much
common interest with IODesign or .nu?
Clearly, in the case of ISPs, the big ones are very interested in gobbling
up the business of the small ones. Yet, they seem to be considered as
uniform class.
Why should we assume the mantle of the all-known deity and and assert
that such common interests exist? Why not let the common interests
naturally form and evolve through the exercise of individual votes?
> But all this is not a response to my post. It remains true that the DNSO
> (dnso.org) has succeeded in regrouping many players of significance in the
> Internet community.
The DNSO effort is by far the brightest of the lights of the three SO's.
--karl--
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
