Re: [wg-review] SME constituency?

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

I don't always agree with Roeland, but I must admit that what he has
said here is spot on.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> It is clear that we can neither agree on specific constituencies or that
> anyone has a clue on the process needed to create a constituency. Simply
> creating them by executive fiat, as the current constituencies are, is
> generally unacceptable. This includes all the wrangeling over Independent
> Domain Holders.

This should be obvious to everyone. Whether they're willing to admit
it publicly is another matter.

> A better, more inclusive approach is to let the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No
> kowtowing to special interests here (TM or otherwise). Let blocks of voters
> form PACs, but each individual votes independently. For the DNSO, a voting
> member is one that has color of title to, at least one, domain name.
> Additional domain names do not garner any extra voting rights, however.
> Legally recognized corporate entities can vote along with anyone else.

The only reasonable solution. Therefore it isn't acceptable.

> This isn't a new suggestion. I has been bandied about for a few years. 
It was even made a part of some of the better proposals for the
NewCo, as I recall. But the IP folks couldn't see how they would
have a majority, so it was given up.

> The
> FUD that has been spread against this is the "capture-effect" bugaboo. I
> submit that this isn't ameliorated by the current situation, where the TM
> and IP folks have, in effect, captured the current system, in spite of all
> those constituencies.

It's a common enought trick, Roeland. One accuses ones opponents of
wanting to do what one is doing oneself. The TM and IP people wanted
to capture the DNSO, so they accused the rest of us of wanting to
capture it.

> Also, Domingo is right. These discussion groups tend to get mighty confusing
> and unwieldy. It doesn't scale. I have said it before, NewsGroups are a
> technology that are designed to deal with the volume of UseNet. No, we don't
> have to put it on UseNet. In fact, my recommendation is that we don't do
> that. ICANN/DNSO needs to form their own network for this. Feeds and servers
> can be acquired, the DNSO simply has to "want" to do this. There are plenty
> of us that can find the resources. It isn't as if we weren't tech-heavy.

These mailing lists are, so far as ICANN is concerned, of minimul
importance. They are just a panacea, a means of being able to say
"there was an open process". This is evident from the fact that the
lists are so disorganized, and even technically they fail (e.g. many
of us have lost posts). Of course it would be best to do as you
suggest, but ICANN won't do it because they don't really want public
discussion and involvement. Neither does the NC, which, despite
outward appearances, continues to decide things privately. What's
needed is an alternative DNSO, or at least an independent initiative
to run some on-going and well-designed discussion groups.
Unfortunately, most of the really key players in the opposition have
by now become so dependent on ICANN's falty mechanisms that they
won't go outside them.

> As far as fiscal health is concerned, ICANN couldn't have botched that job
> worse, if they had tried. You don't simply walk up to a business, hand them
> an invoice, and expect them to pay (exactly what ICANN did to the > ccTLDs).

The ccTLDs are going to break ICANN, literally as well as fiscally.

> You have to convince them that the are getting some benefit from your
> presence. Where is the value-add? The DNSO is in exactly the same boat.
> Since the only ones seeing any benefit, thus far, are the TM&IP interests,
> then they should be sent the bill. I'm certainly NOT a WIPO fan, but if they
> are getting the benefit, where's their money?

It's a rule of politics, Roeland. The people who get the benefit
also get to charge others for their work. That's what the us lumpen
are for: to pay the bills. :-)

M.S.
--
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