[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Individual representation
The simple fact Kent, is that you oppose individual representation in
the DNSO because the most substantial opposition to your
CORE/ISOC/Trademark agenda will come from grass roots individual
BTW, since Trademark interests are also able to join the General
Assembly, they do not need representation in the Names Council.
Neither do commercial/business interests.
Your line of reasoning is flawed, and only serves the purpose noted in
my first paragraph above.
Without individual representation in the Names Council, CORE/ISOC and
the Trademark interests hope that the Names Council can more easily
push policy "recommendations" by saying they met little opposition.
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:43:50 -0700, Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>On Sat, Jun 26, 1999, Ellen Rony wrote, on a different list:
>> Diane Cabell wrote:
>> >How would at-large do outreach for enrollment? The cooperation of the
>> >registrars would be the single best source of potential members, IMHO.
>> >There is a need to attract lots of interested parties without excluding
>> >anyone but also to avoid an imbalance that might come from only posting at
>> >organizational sites. What associations claim lots of interested netizens
>> >among their membership base? The .edus have huge enrollments, but perhaps
>> >not many who will be interested in names & numbers. Any suggestions?
>> Let me ask--why would people in the academic community want to join as
>> ICANN members when they have no representation in the DNSO.
>Let me ask -- why do engineers want to join the IETF when they have
>no representation on the IAB?
>> Oh sure, they
>> can be part of the general assembly but they cannot vote for Names Council
>> representatives who vote for the DNSO BOD representatives.
>IETF members get to be part of the "general assembly" of the IETF,
>but they cannot vote for the IAB or IESG.
>Attendance at the IETF meetings is maybe 2500, and there are many
>more who cannot attend and participate through email. Obviously
>these engineers are sadly deluded in their belief that they can have
>any effect whatsoever on internet standards...
>Sorry for the rhetoric. But the point is that in fact the GA will
>have *substantial* input into the policy making process.
>> OTOH, they can
>> join the At Large members and vote for 9 BOD positions, but At large
>> doesn't make policy recommendations.
>This is a pernicious myth that grows out of Karl's massive
>misunderstanding of the role of the directors. In the normal course
>of events policies are proposed by the SOs, but, as we have recently
>seen, and now hopefully everyone clearly understands, the directors
>can be more active if they feel it is warranted. Therefore, the AL
>directors have opportunity to introduce whatever policy they feel is
>warranted. These AL directors represent the AL membership just as
>the NC reps of a Constituency represent that constituency, and they
>have a far more direct path in the policy making process than the
>IP constituency does.
>Furthermore, as noted above, the GA will in fact have a substantial
>impact on policy development.
>This means that individuals have control over half the representation
>on the Board, they have a means of getting policies directly inserted
>in the process through their elected board representatives, and that
>they have substantial impact if not control over the policy
>recommendations that the DNSO makes.
>It is hard to weigh something as protean as political power, but it
>is clear that individuals have *more than* half of the total power in
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>----- End forwarded message -----
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.