Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 12:39:23AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > > Kent: > > > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > > This is not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect". It is a matter of > > > "consensus". The fact is that the participants of the Barcelona > > > meeting came up with a list of constituencies that they thought > > > clearly needed representation; that was a consensus item; there were > > > no trademark representatives at that meeting pushing them into it; > > > the Monterrey meeting reinforced that consensus. > > > > > > > The "consensus" that emerges from the meetings of the Barcelona meeting, run by Core > > members, its web site operated by ITU, means nothing to me. > > Your openness is legendary. You of course insult all the people at > Barcelona who were not CORE members (I guess you insult the CORE > members as well, come to think about it), and you insult the people > who attended the Monterrey meeting. What all 25 of them! How interesting of a response > However, we didn't have the > luxury of following your wise advice and ignoring them. We take the > consensus that was developed. Well that is a very small group to be claiming any kind of consensus of any real meaning, Kent. You need to develop consensus on the discuss@dsno.org list and other lists before there is any REAL consensus of an y REAL meaning. > > > In any case, the consensus at issue was the notion of membership > classes. CORE has no particular vested interest with respect > to membership classes, neither does PAB, POC, or, even, the ITU. Than why the CLOSED lists, such as the "Participants list", for instance? > > > [...] > > > > So, it would be perfectly reasonable to creat the constituency you > > > describe. Mike Heltzer, the person that I understand did most of the > > > drafting of the INTA document, has suggested to me in private email > > > that there should be a "Free speech and Consumer Interests" > > > constituency, which I think would be a good idea. > > > > Unbelievably disingenuous. If you take the idea seriously, add that constituency to > > your draft NOW. All it takes is a few strokes of the pen. > > Such an action would be totally irresponsible, under the > circumstances. It doesn't take a few strokes of the pen, it takes > consensus, or at least a strong majority, before such a thing can be > contemplated. Let me explain a bit further, since you seem somewhat > oblivious: Adding a new constituency is a non-trivial matter because > it changes representation patterns. I am in no position to > unilaterally gerrymander those through a casual stroke of the pen. And it is for your own stated reason amongst others that have been presented, that "Classes" of membership are a very bad idea and divisive in nature. "Classes" of membership makes a statement that some constituencies have more VOICE and STAKE that others. This idea has not and is doubtful it could be determined. Hence many different "Classes" of membership are just a method of "Capture" of any DNSO by special interest. This is mot especially represented in the DNSO.ORG's December 16 Draft. > > > [...] > > > > The majority of entities involved *do want* membership classes > > > structured to reflect constituencies. > > > > But is this the best way to do it, Kent? Or is it just that they all think that they > > will be able to gain some form of exploitive economic power over the name space? > > My assessment is that no one but the "prospective registries" and NSI > are interested in "exploitive economic power" -- oh, and a couple of > weird ccTLDs, operating in a very gTLD-like way, as well. Without > exception, everybody else is coming from a primarily defensive > position. That is, they are afraid of what the DNSO might do to > their current and already existing interests [of course, NSI is > interested in *both* exploitive economic power and protecting its > current interests -- which happens to be exploitive economic power.] > > > > I don't have a particular ax to grind here -- if there is a clear > > > and substantial move away from a constituency basis, then it will > > > happen. I don't see such a move, however. > > > > As long as you're in charge, you don't care whether the system fosters justice or > > special interest turf battles, eh? > > Now there's a clever insult. I'm sure you are quite proud of yourself. > > > > Personally, I don't think it matters too much from a practical point > > > of view, as long as the number of special interests is fairly large, > > > and no one of them has obvious control. > > > > There is no reason to solidify special interests in the form of membership classes. > > Special interests can operate and be heard without them. > > > > At what point in this exchange are you going to give us a *reason* for membership > > classes other than long, drawn-out, fancy ways of saying: > > "...because that's what we've already decided to do?" > > It should be completely obvious to one with your background, but I > have ceased to be amazed by the strange gaps in your knowledge. > > The primary reason for membership classes is protection against > tyranny of the majority. And this is both a false method of achieving that goal as well as actually nearly assuring disjointed representation. > There are about 250 registries; and easily > 10 times as many members in the total membership of the dnso. Where did you come up with the "About 250 Registries" figure? > > Therefore, the 2500 could easily vote to do something that would be > against the interests of registries -- something that would be a > genuine injustice. Why would such an even necessarily be an injustice? Doesn't it depend on exactly what might be voted to be done or recommended? Such broad statements are almost always invalid by definition. It is a common logical fallacy known as "Glittering Generalities". > > > For example, the DNSO could vote that all registries will pay > $5/SLD/year to support the DNSO. [This matter of a second level > domain tax came up at the Barcelona meeting, and was argued against > very strenuously by some of the ccTLD registries.] Well isn't is likely that such an event or suggestion would be voted down by a general membership before it would be by a bunch of Classes of Membership. > > > There are other means of protecting against the tyranny of the > majority -- "bill of rights" style guarantees for minorities, for > example. That was an idea I pushed for a while -- in fact I even > wrote a paper on it, as I recall. But a bit of exploration revealed > that a "bill of rights" in this case is very tricky document to agree > on, and it is much simpler to use constituencies as a means of > guaranteeing representation. Constituencies will develop on their own if that need is perceived. It is both not rational and inaccurate to "Predefine Classes" of membership to stand for these constituencies . > > > Some other alternatives were discussed, as well -- there was one > scheme for a "supermajority on demand" voting regime that we worked > on for a while, hoping to fix the obvious problem with it. > > -- > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams 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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature