Patrick and all,
We (INEGroup) would be very skeptical of any model that the ISOC
would be employing at this juncture due to their obvious leadership
problems, not to mention their internal membership problems
and financial problems that have come to light in the past few months.
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > The two issues are completely othorgonal.
> >
> > In the current draft, *any* entity can become a member of the DNSO,
> > whether they have a domain name or not, as long as they can
> > demonstrate a legal identity. That would be a natural person,
> > corporation, or any other legally constituted entity. They are
> > required to pay a basic fee, constrained to be low (something
> > between $10-$100/year).
>
> A question: What in your opinion would constitute demonstration of "legal
> identity" keeping in mind the global nature of the organization?
>
> > With a completely flat membership model you have a "tyranny of the
> > majority" problem, where the majority abuses the rights of a
> > minority. In the US constitution this is dealt with with the "Bill
> > of Rights" -- a statement of rights that the majority simply cannot
> > abridge. [At the Monterrey meeting I presented a short paper on a
> > "Bill of Rights" model for dealing with the "Tyranny of the majority
> > problem". It wasn't adopted. I think the reason is the difficulty
> > of getting agreement on what "rights" are involved.
>
> Another way in which the Constitution deals with this issue is the
> seperation of powers between seperate branches of government.
>
> > A constituency model is another way to get around the "Tyranny of
> > the Majority" problem -- A minority (such as registries) get a
> > guaranteed spot at the table that cannot be voted away by the
> > majority. This is by no means a perfect solution -- there is no
> > perfect solution.
>
> My personal feeling is that a bicameral model might be a reasonable approach
> to this issue. I believe ISOC employs this very model, with individual
> memberships and corporate memberships. This would seem like a fair
> approach to the DNSO, and a reasonable compromise between a completely
> flat model, and one that is constituency based and involving complex
> weighting schemes. It also takes much of the admistrative hassle out of
> figuring out who is a member of what constituency(and validation of) for
> purposes of DNSO membership. Each branch has equal voting power. Of course
> there is the issue of possible conflicting votes between the two, and some
> sort of "tiebreaker" mechanism would be necessary.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
> CTO (925) 377-1212 v
> NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
> Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
