[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
globe's populace.

> 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
be destroyed?

> 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
> difference.
> 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:)
> http://www.tallship.net/idno

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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208