Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 10:56 AM 1/12/01, Kent Crispin wrote:

Kent, this is very honest of you, and rather brave.....and utterly 
inappropriate. To characterize anyone who disagrees with the current 
structure as "anti-ICANN" with "an axe to grind" is both insulting and 
misleading. It also fails to recognize the good-faith efforts of those who 
think we can operate better another way.

But then - your first statement below probably explains a lot of the 
rhetoric. If the premise is that anyone who either disagrees with the 
current structure, has been somehow damaged by the UDRP, or has a 
disagreement about the way the root COULD operate is automatically 
"anti-ICANN", everything you say makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for 
sense, it's a false premise.

Thank you for clarifying that operating assumption for the group. I'm sure 
it will make a significant difference in how people understand the various 
problems the DNSO process faces.

>If you start with a false premise, you can conclude anything you want, of 
>course

No kidding.

>One of the real concerns here is that you explicitly don't want to
>create a constituency that consists of a small group people who care
>deeply about some issue, because that is intrinsically unbalanced.

Are you talking about gTLD, IP, or registrars? All of these are 
"intrinsically unbalanced" and all of them consist of a small group of 
members - and all of them have legitimate reasons to exist given the 
current structure. I don't object to them being there - I object to idea 
that currently unrepresented groups shouldn't be there.

>To put it in a blunt, concrete example, the ICC is going to give a far,
>far more representative and balanced view of the interests of small
>business than a constituency composed entirely of individuals who lost a
>UDRP action, domain speculators and cybersquatters, and alternate root
>afficianodos.

BWAHAHAHA. I'm just imagining a constituency of those 3 groups - they'd 
spend so much time arguing among themselves that they'd never be able to 
report out anything. "I lost my domain name unfairly" "Well, I have a right 
to hold it for resale" "Why don't you just register it in .alt"

Put them all in one place and you can keep an eye on them.....*wink*

>One of the major concerns of those opposed to an individuals
>constituency, in any form, is that it would be a magnet for angry
>individuals with "axes to grind".

At this point of those within this WG who have expressed an opionion, 
people with that concern seem to be a very tiny minority.

>the IDNO was a code name for the "anti-ICANN" constituency.

Hogwash.

Regards,
Greg

--
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