Re: [nc-org] "Sponsored-unrestricted"
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, at 23:13 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> Marc Schneiders <firstname.lastname@example.org> 09/15/01 16:39 PM >>>
> Ex ante - ex post... What sort of ex post restrictions
> are you thinking of?
> MM: ====> None.
> Further on you mention a dispute policy See below).
> Should we not make clear that we do not want that either?
> MM: ====> I thought we had made that clear. Here is
> the relevant language:
> [restrictions, whether ex-ante or ex-post]
> "would be far more costly, less stable, and would
> diminish end user choice. Moreover, given the very
> mixed nature of current registrations in ORG, there is
> limited value in attempting to impose "purifying"
> measures unless one is also prepared to evict large
> numbers of current registrants, and there seems to be
> no support for this."
Then we should completely omit ex ante/post language to avoid giving
people (wrong) ideas. The distinction serves no purpose.
> This is why we need to come up and put in our report a
> clear idea of how the users/registrants (not-for-
> profits, individuals) are going to be represented. Who
> is going to (s)elect them? And how?
> MM: =====> I think that is for the bidders to
> propose. I think it too interventionist and
> controlling to tell them specific methods that must
> be employed for representation. We cannot anticipate
> all the possible methods that might be proposed.
Why? If we can propose the registration policy, why not the way in
which new org is governed? Do we not *need* to do that, since the way
in which it is ruled (e.g. marketing new org in a certain way as you
suggest), determines whether this policy will work? In any case we
could (and should, I think), include clear indications that the
bidders should tell how the org-registrants are going to be
represented on the board of new org. Otherwise we will open up all
sorts of possibilities to repeat the At large story on a smaller