Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.

[david@farrar.com]

Bret wrote:

> Regarding one of the issues to which you referred, about the domain name
> holders having votes, and, whether it should be one vote, per domain
> name, 

I do not know of anyone at all who has ever proposed this.  Such a proposal 
would be repugnant as it would allow wealthy individuals the ability to buy 
multiple votes.  This issue is really a bit of a red herring as no one at all 
has serioualy suggested an individual getting more than one vote.

> etc; you will probably, by now, have seen my message, where I
> objected to domain name holders, or, owners, or whatever (a rose by any
> other name, ...), being accorded special privileges, and, a class of
> their own, as I had been cheated out of a domain name, which a registrar
> had sold to a pirate. 

With all respect I have some problems with the logic you employ here.  First of 
all are you aware of the current structure of the DNSO.  There are seven 
classes of people who have special privileges (a constituency) and they are 
those representing Registries, Registrars, ISPs, Businesses, IP Lawyers, 
country code Registries and non cpmmerical organisations.

Currently if you do not qualify as a representative of any of the above 
businesses or organisations you get no representation.  One suggestion has been 
that individuals should be allowed to be represented and that one particular 
group of individuals are those who hold domain names as that makes them 
directly affected by domain name policy.  This is not taking anything away from 
individual who do not hold domain names but at least allows some individuals 
representation.

I believe individuals who are not domain name holders should also be 
represented and that this is probably best through the General Assembly by 
giving the GA the pwoer to also appoint members of the Names Council.

> Now, if a pirate has a hundred, or, a thousand,
> domain names, that it is holding for ransom, depending on which model is
> being used, the pirate could have a vote for each domain name, that it
> is holding for ransom, thus compounding its wrongs.

No - no-one at all ius proposing this.
 
> The integrity of a system, that rewards those who wrong others, becomes
> a matter for concern, when the crooks are so rewarded.

I think you are letting your experience with one particular person cloud the 
issue of whether individuals who hold domain names should have a say in setting 
domain name policy.  
 
> Thus, I suggested, in my model, a vote (or, however you want to put it),
> for each individual who is an Internet subscriber, or, where the
> Internet subscriber is an organisation, one person representing the
> organisation.

So can I get this clear.  You do support a constituency for individuals but you 
feel it should not be restricted to current domain name holders only?  Would 
you have an objection to tweo individual constituencies - one for holders and 
one for individuals who are not holders?
 
> Thus, each Internet subscriber is represented (providing the subscriber
> is aware of the opportunity to represent), equally, and fairly (well, to
> some extent, anyway).

There is an argument that those who have paid money for a domain name and hence 
fund ICANN have a stronger case for representation than those who have paid 
nothing.
 
> Now, here's one for you; if domain name holders sre so elite, as to have
> their own class, and privileges (and a box at the races :), what about
> holders of subdomains?

Those who hold subdomains are in a private leasing arrangment with the holder 
of their domain.  
 
There is nothing elite in my opinion about giving domain name holders 
representation within ICANN.  Not to do so is elitist.

DPF

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html