>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:12:52 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["A Gehring"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From open.org!alg Wed Jun 2 02:12:50 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from opengovt.open.org([199.2.104.1]) (5030 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:56:59 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by opengovt.open.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00160;
> Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from opengovt196.open.org(199.2.104.196) by opengovt.open.org via smap
>(V2.0)
> id xmaa29913; Tue, 1 Jun 99 22:40:01 -0700
>Message-ID: <00bc01beace4$e0916ae0$c46802c7@gehring-group>
>Reply-To: "A Gehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "A Gehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Jeff Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joop Teernstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "DNSO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "ICANN DNSO List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO:87] Re: the non-commercial constituency
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:27:46 -1200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2120.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0
>
>Jeff,
>
>I agree with your premise, that non-commercial interests need to be
>included in the model for representation.
>
>It seems to me that many/most non-commercial interest organizations will
>find way to represent their member's interests though any/all
>constituencies. It also, seems to me that commercial interests will
>find way to represent themselves, in replicate, through the
>non-commercial constituency as well.
>
>The whole idea of dividing cyberspace political representation into
>separate regions based on interest rather than geography does not seem
>to present a very workable solution. The boundary lines are simply not
>distinct. Albeit, I do not favor geographic gerrymandering any more.
>
>Never-the-less, I feel it a better solution to allocate Name Council
>seats to constituencies on an as earned basis; earned through vote of
>the 'individual' stakeholders. e.g. If the leadership of the Registry
>Constituency can win 20% of the votes (from individual voters) in
>council elections they then earn 20% of the council seats. etc.
>
>There should, also, be no limit on the number of self forming
>constituencies. However, I could accept an arbitrary and modest
>threshold that a constituency be required to meet, such as a minimum
>membership.
>
>It can not simply be left up to the ICANN BoD to arbitrarily decide whom
>may represent their interests. It is not yet known whom all will be
>driven to the brink of becoming interested.
>
>Arnold Gehring
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Monday, May 31, 1999 8:28 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:
>>William Arnold and all,
>>
>> I am not quite as religious as William seems to be here. >;) It is
>>very necessary that the Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency
>>be in existence for those Domain Name interests that are truly
>>non-commercial. Otherwise we wind up with a DNSO and an ICANN
>>that is completely controlled and at least dominated by only
>>commercial interests. This would be unhealthy for the Internet.
>>
>>William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Amen! :)
>>>
>>> On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:01:50 -1200, "A Gehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Joop, Michael, Milton, Don, and all,
>>> >
>>> >Individuals and the power-hungry are not mutually exclusive groups.
>>> >
>>> >If the DNSO were to only have one constituency, I could accept none
>that
>>> >did not place service to and representation of the individual as
>it's
>>> >central theme. We have now six constituencies, and yet none do
>center
>>> >their foundations upon the individual.
>>> >
>>> >My suggestion would be to abandon any further efforts to resurrect
>the
>>> >Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency. Resolve instead to form
>the
>>> >Individual Domain Owner's Constituency.
>>> >
>>> >Let all individuals resolve their diffused effect into a focused and
>>> >inclusive constituency of the IDNO. Let this become the Seventh
>>> >Constituency of the DNSO and deliver the voice through individuals.
>>> >
>>> >Let These Individuals send their Leaders; be they hungry for power,
>be
>>> >they hungry for justice, or be they hungry for an opportunity to
>>> >deliver forethought to all, malice toward none, and humble service
>to
>>> >the entire Internet Community; go now to the ICANN and there demand
>>> >acceptance of the IDNO as the seventh constituency of her DNSO.
>>> >
>>> >Arnold Gehring
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >In an Institution where a 'D' is a passing grade: Getting it one
>>> >seventh right is better than getting it all wrong. "I want the
>Vote."
>>>
>>> --
>>> William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>>> Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>>
>>> The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go
>>> crying to every time you have something
>>> to whimper about.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
