[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] the IDNO chewing on itself
I don't think that's quite what Prof. Froomkin meant. Not that it didn't
mean this could include several constituencies, but the jist of his
comment I believe, was that an "Indivudual constituency" didn't
neccessarily equate to "IDNO" (JDNO) as that particular constituency.
Oft times there are, for lack of a better word, "beta" orgs, that for some
reason or another don't quite muster up (IAHC, par example) in the big
scheme of things. JDNO was apparently, at least in my view, one of them.
If you would have the mindset of some.... Then the NCDNHC (Did I get that
right?) was the constituency that won out over the JDNO.
As far as having 29 individual constituencies for Registrars and 17 for
commercial and 3487 for individuals themselves, there's a pointlessness to
it all that really brings to mind the old JDNO argument of complete and
Why not, if you're going to have so many groups representing a single kind
of interest and swell the size of the auditorium anyway that holds all of
the reps with the power to vote?
The fact is, that there are several efforts well underway toward picking
up, and in fact running with the torch that the JDNO claimed to carry now
that it is defunct.
We learned a lot from that experience - Not that any amount of screaming
or intentional disruption can destroy an organization. Because it can't
(It hasn't happened here and it certainly wasn't the cause of the total
destruction of the JDNO).
What we learned from that experience, is that an organization that is
supposed to espouse the views and hopes and aspirations of many cannot be
administered by too few personalities, as it is in the flaws of those
personalities that the reputation of the organization hinges.
Slap on the mayonaise real thick, and the person who doesn't like mayo has
the sense of scooping it all away. Real thin, and the person that doesn't
like it doesn't have the sense that scraping the bread made any
Conversely, piling on the mayo like mortar also means that there is plenty
to go around for those who would like some from your sandwich.
Well Dan, how's that. I didn't bash him directly.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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.
> Stay tuned.
> 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
> membership structure.
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org (or direct:)
--Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org (or direct:)