Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"
IMHO this is the reason why the IDNH meets problems for so long. But there
are three problems:
1) the large organizations which creates most of the problems also are
2) the consumer protection is often an existing industry where the Internet
is of no real interest yet.
3) the way the AmerICANN would most probably implement it would give it a
new contested legitimacy in a field where it has no responsibility.
The IDNH approach seems to be a good starting root to address these
problems. It puts the emphasis on the individual aspect essential to the
"me/we" Internet and current social model. Any individual from a large
corporation may participates (ex. Mr. Katho as an @large Director). Then it
permits to put an emphasis on the individual aspect of many other problems
(the nets are a consensus of individual participants to communicate in
using he TCP/IP protocol set and the IP addressing scheme simplified by the
DNS). The next step would probably be a Internet Participant SO including
several dedicated interest groups: the participant as an individual, the
participant as a Domain Name Holder, the groups of participants (families,
associations, parties), the Consumer Representative Organizations, the
Human Electronic Right organizations.
I am sure that several persons at BoD and STaff understand the danger of
such an approach which would give representation to 99,5% of the individual
participants and to the market. And the opportunities of power that
twisting it might represent. This is why it was not the proper time to push
for it at IDNO or in other fora until now. But for a couple of months this
kind of consideration have partially developed, and it is probably time to
talk about it. Thank you for rising the issue.
This is one of the topics which should be developed on the R&D sub-list I
Eventually, this is where everything will end. The nets governance is still
too much technic/university oriented and must become market driven. Not
easy for many to release their grip over it. We need to understand them:
they do not only fear to lose power, but that in losing control they turn
the networks lose. They do not trust the new generation ... Fighting them
(as Kent) is of no use: they will go away anyway in a few years (30, 40?
:-) ). If you want to save time - you have to compromise with them but on
the roots of their problem, not in the DNS root. Or to show them you are
good too and you are a member of the "net keepers" club.
On 06:15 27/07/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> > At the risk of drawing flack and flame mail, my own view is that it would
> > be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant Protection
> > Constituency - rather than an individuals constituency. While, in a sense
> > this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
> > focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
> > membership to to purpose of the constituency. By emphasising the purpose,
> > it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
> > constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or other
> > public interest or consumer protection organisations) and clarify
> > membership benefits.
>This idea has possibilities. Methinks there are some merits to this
>proposition. Perhaps we can develop this in more detail? As there would
>to be a definition of the position of consumers/regitrants, which your
>CRPC would be advocating, would it not be wise to finally include a discussion
>on the definition of domain names in the new weltanschauung?
>This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
>Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html