[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] the IDNO chewing on itself
Bradley and all,
Ohh, this is a real peace of work here! >;) Let's review it from
a FACTUAL point of view. (See more below Bradley's comments)
IDNO Bootstrap wrote:
> 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.
It's the IDNO Bradley. Try to be accurate, ok?
> 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.
I don't know what the "JDNO" is... Beta orgs? That is a new one on me!
> 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.
In the the "JDNO" doesn't exist, this conclusion would be inevitable.
> 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
> total democracy.
JDNO again? What is that? Do you have a URL for this "JDNO"?
Democracy has been the preferred form of governance and spreading, for
some time now. I personally believe, as do the growing majority of the
> 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?
Yes. And a very good idea. It is what the world is moving towards.
> 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.
As far as I know the "JDNO" you mention has never existed.
> 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).
The "JDNO" again? Hummmm? How can something that never existed
> 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.
The reputation has more than one hinge. Like a door, one hinge does
not a door make.
> 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.
Don't eat sandwiches. >;)
> 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
> > succeeding.
> > >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.
> > <snip>
> > >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:)
> > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
> --Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.-- , bootstrap of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org (or direct:)
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208