Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

I'm missing a rational connection here. In one case, "power" comes from
buying up tons of votes; in the scenario below, "power" comes from
buying and controlling tons of computers tied to the internet. In either
case, how does the buying of this or that rationally imply the right to a
correspondingly larger voice in Internet affairs? Either of these seem
to me to dilute out the voice of the individual.

However, I would emphatically concur with the idea that constituencies
need precise definition as to the perspective from which thie members
speak -- not as to specific positions on specific issues (although what
that might be might easily be inferred from the perspective -- but rather
"is this the voice of the individual, a small business, a large business, a
hobbiest, a merchant, an entrepreneur with an invention?" (I know lots of
people of this last type -- many clients open up shop on the web the day
the patent application is filed) and so on.

Again, none of this definition notion precludes anyone from joining any
constituency, but it would give the person looking around an idea of
whether that person was joining a compatible bunch, or would be
walking into a den of wolves.

Bill Lovell

"McMeikan, Andrew" wrote:

> I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
> definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject line.
>
> in general there are
> 1)the mass of users
> 2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall net
> 3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part of the
> internet
> 4)some can exercise control of several computers  that are part of the
> internet
> 5)some control large numbers of computers on the internet
> 6)some control vast chunks of internet resources both computers and pipes
> 7) ICANN wants one root to bind them
>
> I think that we need to explicitly specify the level to be represented,
> e.g.. IDNO requires 3, at-large implies 2
> Individuals constituency sounds like it is open to 1 (although active
> participation would bump them into 2)
>
> I would love to see a constituency at level 3  recognised but at any lower
> level it would need mass numbers of members to hold any authority to speak
> on their behalf.
>
> Please re-word the motion such that IC is defined or referenced to a
> previous definition. I am likely to second once done.
>
> Does it require:
> * control of at least one DNS style domain name
> * a non-transient computer  publicly connected (is not a number just another
> name?)
> * contribution of content (almost everybody, but there are now freeweb sites
> poping up on freenet and there is no real physical computer that you can pin
> down and Freenet Name Service may one day rival DNS {one can dream})
>
>         cya,    Andrew...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joop Teernstra [SMTP:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 7:50 AM
> > To:   ga@dnso.org
> > Subject:      Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > holders'  constituency (IC)
> >
> > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
> > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> > >references to this organization.
> > >
> >
> > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA.
> > This is why I speak of an IC.
> >
> > However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
> > considerans.
> > The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.
> >
> > Pray tell, what makes a bottom-up self organizing process legitimate in
> > your eyes?
> > Only the blessing by the ICANN Board, perhaps? Crises are nothing new in
> > online organizations. I'm just witnessing another one in MINC.
> >
> > For clarity, let me repeat the motion itself:
> >
> > I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate
> > acknowledgement
> > of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in accordance with its
> > Bylaws.
> >
> > I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution
> > recommending
> > that the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC or the
> > "approval in
> > principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.
> >
> > Any seconds for this motion?
> >
> >
> >
> > -joop
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html