Jay,
Seems to me the problems are with constituencies generally, since they
can't be defined perfectly mutually exclusively, and a simple ban on same
entity participation across them would eliminate instances where it really
might make sense to have multiple participation--why ought a single
entrepreneur have to choose between an IDNO and the commercial
constituency?--while allowing organizations with multiple individuals to
assign them separately to each group anyway. If the voting mechanisms for
names council rep were the same across constituencies I could see a rule
where someone only gets one vote and has to choose in which constituency to
place it. So long as the constituencies aren't just working groups (in
which case it wouldn't be as controversial to have open participation) but
also elect names council members according to their own rules, there are
going to be problems.
Anyway, we seem to roughly agree here, except that you're more confident in
one particular constituency model (one not adopted by the board) than I am
in any of them. You hold me to a high standard to ask that I have been
reading everything on IFWP and posting public displays of support (or not)
on each issue as it arises. I can't meet that standard. I saw the
presentation of a consensus document in Singapore (posted at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/DNSOdraft.html>),
which certainly doesn't highlight the multiple representation issue so
learly. Please, if you think I'm getting the history wrong, by all means
help me out instead of lobbing cheap shots that say I'm willfully ignoring
the truth for some evil end. ...Jonathan
At 09:54 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>At 08:55 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
> >This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
> >arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
> >get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
> >individuals within non-commercial and they get one set, include them as
> >part of an IDNO and they get two. Funny, though: I was there in Singapore
> >when it seemed clear that consensus had been built around the
> >constituency-based DNSO proposal. At the time it must have seemed like pie
> >slices for everyone.
>
>
>This is not funny at all.
>
>The problem here seems to be that people
>involved with ICANN would rather ignore
>the history, than acknowledge it.
>
>The problem of overlapping constituency
>membership was explicitly addressed in the
>Paris draft, and it was one of the most
>contentious items discussed in Singapore.
>
>The fact that the board ignored our position,
>is only made worse by your flippant remarks.
>Where were your comments when this was posted
>to the public lists, Jonathan?
>
>Still Upset in Atlanta,
>
>Jay.
