Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 04:21:14PM -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > >Interested individuals -- Elen Rony. Karl Auerbach. Dan Steinberg.
> > >Marty Schwimmer. Dave Farber. Joop Teernstra. Milton Mueller.
> > >Patrick Greenwell.
> >
> > What if my firm belonged to one of the other constituencies?
>
> That's fine. But wait, you ask -- what happens if your firm is huge
> and you pay everyone of your employees a $500 bonus to join the
> at-large constituency, and vote as your company directs?
>
> The answer is that I don't think this is a realistic concern, in
> either the fanciful way I stated it, or otherwise, for several
> reasons.
>
> First, you can't guarantee control of the at-large, regardless
> of what you spend -- your competitors can do the same thing; every
> company in every other constituency could do the same thing; the
> irate Internet users could join en masse. It's an expensive gamble
> with a very uncertain payoff to try to stack the at large.
So far so good. You make a great case here for a flat class model
here.
>
>
> Second, even with total control of the at-large, you still don't
> control the names council. All the other constituencies have their
> nominees -- even if your company is a member of every constituency
> you can still only replace 1/3 of the nc members in a year.
Ahhhhhh! Now we are back to multiple constituencies. Bad idea.
Why? Well as has been pointed our several times now, they are
divisive, subject to subversion much too easily, inherently destabilizing,
and are actually a form of gerrymandering.
>
>
> Third, ultimately, you have ICANN looking over the whole thing.
> There is a requirement for fair and open processes; an attempt to
> capture the names council would invalidate that, and presumably
> invalidate any contract between dnso and icann. A new dnso would
> have to be formed, etc etc. Remember, also, that the dnso policy
> recomendations are not just accepted blindly by ICANN -- there are
> certain sanity checks required.
Sniff! Sniff! How come this is beginning to smell like the gTLD-MoU
with a different name?
>
>
> But wait, you ask again -- won't the at-large be taken over by
> nutcases? quite possibly, I answer, but the nutcases won't have a
> unified point of view. In fact, the reasoning above applies to any
> point of view, not just a particular corporate view: it is difficult
> for a single point of view to capture the at-large, regardless,
> because alternate points of view will join, and there is enough
> inertia in the system to deal with short-term fluctuations.
Now this is better! just trash all of those old smelly constituencies
and leave a flat model here and you got a good basis for a DNSO.
>
>
> > >A domain name pirate.
> > >
> > >A website owner with a virtual domain who has been impacted by a
> > >domain name pirate.
> > >
> > >An individual fed up with harvesting of email addresses in whois
> > >records, or otherwise concerned with privacy matters associated with DNS.
> >
> > Realistically, how many of these would pay the dnso fee and bother?
> > Wouldn't they rather vent on an open dnso list?
>
> I don't know. I think they would do both -- note that Mikki Barry
> says she is a member of INTA, which costs hundreds of dollars.
>
> > >A person with a point of view on dispute resolution that they don't
> > >see reflected in another constituency.
> > >
> > >I could probably go on for some time. Basically, any entity that didn't
> > >feel their interests were represented in another constituency. Note
> > >that the operative definition is what *they* think about the matter,
> > >not what the definitions of the constituencies are.
> >
> > Does that comment apply only to at large or to all? If I am prepared to
> > pay the ISP fee, can I join the ISP constituency, even if I wans't an ISP?
>
> No -- each constituency has its own membership criteria (which are
> required to be reasonable, and fairly applied, of course); and there
> is an appeal body that deals with disputes over membership in a
> constituency.
Again this is more divisive that helpful. It is also very subject to
subversion.
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
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____________________________________________
