Karl Auerbach a �crit:
>
> > > It is my position that "groups" should not have any voting role whatsoever
> > > in any part of ICANN or its SO's.
I suppose that I agree with this. I just don't see it happening, that's all,
and I want to ameliorate the pernicious effects of group power as much as
possible.
> 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.
The IETF is afraid. They see everything changing and their own roles
diminishing in importance. But they'll come round. They must. They'll have
no choice, in the end. There are too many competent people out there ready
to replace them.
> You should also reflect on the fact that the original ICANN proposals
> staunchly refused to articulate individual membership or even a membership
> at all.
Oh, I've forgotten nothing. The second iteration of the IANA bylaws, in
which the user constituency was abolished, seems to me like it was published
this morning, and is still giving me indigestion :-(
> 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.
That bone is rather important to us users. For us, in practical terms, it's
always been a question of bone or no bone. But within that bone, we have a
voice. Voices are powerful. By their logic they can convince.
> It is far better to let the system evolve and flow rather than to
> predefine power groupings.
Yes, the dynamic nature of the Internet needs to be preserved. That's its
genius. But who is anymore aware of this? The NTIA? The House committees?
The ICANN Board?
> The DNSO effort is by far the brightest of the lights of the three SO's.
This gives me an opening for including here what I put in my personal post.
If you think the DNSO is enlightened, please take a look at the INTA
proposal, which the DNSO.ORG leaders are presently "merging" with the
consensus from Monterrey. It's a total top-down corporate structure, with a
President and Vice-Presidents and an Executive Officer, all unaccountable to
the membership, which is "investigated" by the Names Council before they can
join. The Treasurer is only accountable to the Names Council, not the
membership, which has no right to see the books.
And so forth. This is being seriously discussed at this very moment, to be
incorporated in the DNSO's application. Why? Because e-commerce is now seen
by all players as the immovable force that will control the Internet. On
that presumption, the trademark interests can dictate their terms.
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
