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

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:05:31PM +0100, Robin Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > However, this brings up an important point concerning the basic
> > > structural nature of ICANN/DNSO.  Clearly, the absolutely overwhelming
> > > majority of the 35 million members of the ICC simply don't have time or
> > > interest to devote to participating in ICANN.  To *almost everyone*,
> > > domain names are in fact a microscopic specialized policy concern, and
> > > they would much rather leave it to some organization to represent them.
> >
> > right... the overwhelming majority of Americans do not vote... so therefore
> > voting is a microscopic specialised policy concern, and its much better to
> > leave it up to a dictatorship to represent them...
> 
> You are letting rhetoric get in the way of thinking.  If you start with
> a false premise, you can conclude anything you want, of course, and you
> have several false premises, both implicit and explicit.
> 
> 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.  An
> organization with 35 million members is certainly going to give a more
> balanced view of things than an organization with 200 members all of
> whom are very concerned about some single set of issues.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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".  The vast majority of people don't
> have axes to grind, and don't have time participate, so the angry ones
> will take over the constituency.  But angry individuals with axes to
> grind are not representative of individuals in general.
> 
> This is not just theory, of course -- to date this has been observed in
> every single attempt to organize an individuals constituency.  I think
> it is this phenomenon, incidentally, which led to the board's cooling
> toward Joop's IDNO -- initially there was support on the board, but that
> evaporated when it became clear that the IDNO was a code name for the
> "anti-ICANN" constituency.
> 

Can you please clarify the above for me?

Am I correct, in ,my understanding, that Kent contends that individuals,
including those who have been wronged, should not have a say in the
DNSO, and, in the operations of the domain name system, thus, doubly
wronging them?

That sounds like saying that comsumer organisations should not exist;
that consumers should have no recourse, and, no representation.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
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