> ... the USA,
> uses an equivalant of membership classes called states and congressional
> districts.
We have a census every 10 years that reallocates the Congressional seats
according to population. It's an objective method of ensuring that the
per-capita voting power remains roughly equivalent. As for the Senate --
that's the result of an historical power struggle. But one might note
that even Senators are now elected according to popular vote even though
that wasn't the case in the original document of 1787.
> Having only an individual membership is very unpractical. Most of the
> fights about the policy of the DNS are fights between organizations and/or
> corporations. So it is only logic that corporations and organizations
> are allowed to be members of the DNSO.
*Some* of the fights have been between organizations and corporations.
Many have been between individuals and corporations.
But that's not relevant.
The policy issues concern everyone -- for instance, do you as a person
have an ability to hold the domain name "hovers" against someone with a
trademark who wants it?
Just because a dispute is fought between two parties doesn't mean that
those parties are the only ones interested in the outcome. And one has to
also remember that disputes are often battles the result of which is based
on relative economic staying power rather than the reasoned evaluation of
public policy and perhaps some notion of maximization of the public good.
To say that the parties to a dispute are the only ones with a stake in the
issues would be akin to saying that only software development companies
have a care in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
In the case of IP address allocation, the issues at hand will to a large
extent determine the speed and form of the consolidation of ISPs into a
few mega-ISPs. This will have a huge impact on everyone.
One could say that "public interest" classes could serve to represent the
large number of people who neither know about the issues nor have the
individual economic incentive to pay the expenses of participation.
There's merit to that argument.
On the other hand, if one doesn't start out with a structure which kow
tows to pre-conceived interests, then the need to build in a
counterveiling "public interest" structure is significantly reduced.
> I am not sure if membership classes are really necessary. Once the DNSO
> is in place a lot of corporations and organizations will join who are
> now not expressing their voices in these mailinglists. But I feel strongly
> that the division into membership classes should not be a way to
> influence the immediate decisions that the DNSO has to make. The goal
> of any division into membership classes will have to be the long term
> stability of the DNSO.
In general, the various SO's will have members who have focused interests
in those topics and will thus tend to not contain those who have a
generalized interest. So already we have a focusing and concentration of
power into the hands of those who are large enough entities that they can
afford to participate.
> The logic of my division is that the companies that provide DNS services,
> like registries, registrars and ISPs are the companies that the DNSO
> has to regulate. Putting these companies into a special membership class
> will ensure that the businesses which the DNSO is supposed to regulate
> will have a voice. On the other hand, it ensures that other interests also
> have a voice.
I don't think you need to worry, those who are being regulated will speak
clearly. They are getting fair hearing panels and other mechanisms.
The classful approach not only gives voices, but perpetuates voices and
amplifies them beyond any actual size they may have.
Like most institutional structures, classes tend to ossify and not change
with the times. Thus, today's notion what forms an interest group may not
be the same tomorrow, but the class will remain, often tending to be a
means through which a very small interest can obtain a very big voice or
vice versa.
> Apart from the relatively small group that directly provide DNS services,
> there is a huge group of corporations and individuals that are affected
> by the decisions of the DNSO. Because of their sheer number it is
> inpractical to demand of them that all they participate in the DNSO.
No one is asking everyone to participate.
Rather, we are *allowing* them to participate should they chose to do so.
And to participate effectively.
With classes, even if every person on the internet came into the DNSO and
said a policy is wrong, a classful structure would tend to minimize that
voice to whatever pre-determined vote was given to the general membership.
On the issue of size -- remember that we have existance proofs that big
membership bodies do, in fact, work and are able to have practical
elections on issues.
And we have a new electronic medium to make popular sovreignty a far more
practical concept than at any time since the start of the industrial
period 200 years ago.
> And if they all participate, they would outnumber the DNS service
> providers.
Yup. I don't have a problem with that.
The decisions of the DNS service providers affect these people, so what is
wrong with them having a say?
Because Microsoft sells software to several tens of millions of people is
no argument that Microsoft should have a vote in Congress equivalent to
that of several million people.
Concentrated economic interests, whether they be Microsoft or DNS
registrars, have significant more ability to make their views known than
do the average individual. (As an example, one only needs to look at how
strongly corporate voices are heard in Congress.)
You are suggesting that we protect those who need no protection at the
expense of those who are not only normally of small individual voice but
also who are the ones who, in the end, really bear the cost of the
Internet.
> So it is more practical if all these corporations and
> individuals unite in special interest organizations like INTA, DNRC,
> EFF, ISOC, etc.. These organizations represent more corporations and
> users than the DNSO will ever have as members.
Sure, let people unite.
And let those organizations set policies.
And let the members, if they really believe in the organizations, follow
with their votes.
Same for the domain name registrars and ISPs .. let them put forth out
their proposed policies and let's see who follows with their votes.
But don't pre-build in some scale that says "INTA gets X votes, DNRC gets
Y votes, EFF gets Z votes". That merely reflects someone's guess as to
relative power.
> But there may be some individuals and corporations that wish to have
> their own voice in the DNSO. I think they should have that opportunity.
If a corporation wishes to join, it can send a people who can be indivdual
members.
Why carve out a first class seat for corporations and relegate individuals
to the cattle car?
--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____________________________________________
