[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] Re: [IFWP] kmm052 Next Meetings
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>, email@example.com
- Subject: [discuss] Re: [IFWP] kmm052 Next Meetings
- From: Joop Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:52 +1200
- Cc: email@example.com, Enok <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Antonio <email@example.com>, Lee <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kerry <email@example.com>, Divizio <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DNSO General comments <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: <3763B67E.BDD4EFA8@ix.netcom.com>
- References: <19990613195059.AAA29845@LOCALNAME>
- Sender: email@example.com
>> I'm quite sure that Joop is a wise and considerate ruler; and I'm
>> sure that the good people on the Interim Board are doing the best
>> they can, too. But if 'open source' society is what one aspires to,
>> regulating the wazoo out of the organization is no more in the
>> IDNO's "best interest" than it is in ICANNs. Rather, one must come
>> to terms with the reality of the Net: *there is always someone to
>> represent every position*. Democracy is not a matter of reading
>> Announcement Forms as to who is In and who is Out, it's *getting
>> along* with people who disagree.
This is a wonderful concept in peace time. The rules are fair and all
participants agree by the rules. If someone breaks the rules, he is dealt
with according to other rules, not the whim of an autocratic listowner.
It's called: the rule of Law.
We are here at a stage where we have very few rules to start with.
Consensus is formed by people flocking together around an individual who
proposes rules that they like. That individual suddenly is saddled with a
responsibility towards that group and that includes protection of the
fragile consensus that they have just achieved.
>> The better interests of IDNO therefore will be served by a collective
>> membership which *appreciates the opportunity which nay-sayers
>> and iconoclasts provide, and which understands (as Tony said the
>> other day) that "there are multiple different potential outcomes that
>> evolve with time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative answers --
>> just directions."
Again , perfect in peace time. But the IDNO is forming under conditions
that are akin to siege. There is no co-operation from ICANN, no funding ,
no incentive pointing the way to a lucrative business model, no rewards of
any kind. Only a sacrifice of personal time and money.
The incentive factors all stand on the other side of the divide. The odds
in the DNSO will still be overwhelmingly against the Individual DN owner,
even if he would get his recognition and his 3 seats out of 19 (if I count
the gTLD as one).
But there are people that are determined not to let even that happen.
Why? Because they know the strenght of a principle and fear it.
The principle of an uncorrupted representation structure is the only thing
that keeps an IDNO going.
It is not much in the way of incentive, but someone's got to do it.
The more support this someone gets, the quicker the pool of collective
membership will be big enough to support proper collective decisionmaking.
I have just built the tools and I make them available.
I would want to invite the GA of the DNSO to use them too.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners