[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] the IDNO chewing on itself
At 10:45 19/01/00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I agree that "individual constituency" does not necessarily equal "IDNO".
I agree with that too.
There should be room in the DNSO for different constituencies of Individual
Domain Name Owners, with different philosophies.
These constituencies could be allied on a common platform.
This is better than the paralysis generated by "members" who do nothing but
destroying what others try to build up when a takeover by bullying is not
>For the record, I've not endorsed the IDNO, which based on the very
>limited attention I have been able to spare for it, seems to have behaved
>no better or worse than many other political groups deprived of a
>meaningful function (that is, having nothing better to chew on, it has
>chewed on itself).
The IDNO attracts people who want a say in "Domain Name governance". Some
of these people were so keen to make their mark, that they could not wait
until a proper, fair and durable structure to make that possible,was in
place. This is the most charitable interpretation of what has happened.
>I'm not and never have been a member.
Echo's of the '50's? <g>
>But that's not
>the point. I think ICANN has shirked its duty to confront the IDNO issue
>head-on, resorting to technicalities and shell-games of procedure to avoid
>having to decide the substantive issues. IDNO has a right to be heard,
>and to a decision, if not inevitably a favorable one, as its sponsors have
>jumped all the hoops held out in front of them.
One final hoop left:
the Judicial Review Panel of Mrs. Wilson. Any information if it will be
ready and functional in time for "Cairo"?
>If for example, ICANN thinks that an individuals' constituency needs to
>have particular properties before being approved, it should say so.
According to the revelations of "Bradley Thornton" , that recent joiner of
the IDNO who lives conveniently close to the ICANN offices, they have
implied this to him: (over lunch, informally) "maybe, if there is
leadership that they can approve of..."
Or at least, they do NOT want an IDNO led by JT. See: www.idno.org/coup.htm
"BT" speaks about a "done deal" so there may have been some quid pro quo.
Esther Dyson has publicly denied that my stepping down would make any
difference, so it is a matter of whom to believe.
>Any good political structure harnesses ambition for the common good.
>That's part of the genius of the Federalist papers. Ambition is not bad;
>lousy structures are bad.
Quite so. Lousy or not-yet-formed structures invite capture.
The record shows that some in the IDNO started chewing on the others when
structures were proposed that keep decision-making power firmly in the
hands of the majority of its members.
They did not like the collective charter building effort. (In his "I quit"
letter Walsh even questioned the need for a charter)
The first internal battle was precisely about what we are fighting about
here: mailing list rules of order.
This is where "control" begins. The choice between list rule enforcement by
unelected moderators (like the ORSC rules and somewhat like the rules
proposed by Harald here) or by listmember vote still has to be voted on by
the idno-discuss listmembers.
It is all there in the idno archives : http://list.idno.org/archives/
There are salutary lessons there both for this GA and for the future ICANN
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org (or direct:)