[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
Thank you. These are well reasoned thoughts and bolster my initial view. I
think we should consider the staging point.
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 9:51 PM
To: George Conrades; Diane Cabell; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
At 19:43 6/02/99 -0500, George Conrades wrote:
>Joop, what's your arguement for limiting to Domain name holders? Is it
>simplicity or something more? If I am an interested student sharing an
>account am I not qualified to express an at large vote? Why are you so
>concerned about enlarging the scope to at least the broad constituency of
>Internet users? FYI, I have been a proponent of Domain names only until I
>had the input of our International members on the committee.
George, Daniel, Diane and all,
The whole idea is to move the discussion to this list. I am very happy that
you and other MAC members are taking it up.
My arguments for an ICANN of Domain Name and Address space holders:
1. It is the easiest way to create a real electoral roll.
2. Low cost and simplicity of administration/verification (a tick-box for
an extra contribution at the time of (re)registration.)
3. Real democracy has always progressed in small steps-- I have had much
personal experience with systems that profess to give a voice to "the
masses" ; it is an easy cloak for populist tyrants.
4. The Net is a very open communication tool. The interested student with
the email account can still contribute her idea's freely and convince others
with good argument. If voting becomes the real issue, then there will be
democratic organisations that can represent the disenfranchised. I am also
proposing that "all users" can be given a voice via petition and referendum.
5. I am afraid that ordinary Domain Name Owners will not join, if they feel
that "it's all a sham anyway"
To get enough real members is a major consideration. If the membership base
is too small, capture looms large.
6. Giving the vote to "all users" pretends to create that "World Government"
that you would wish to avoid.
7. It is not proper to give a vote to those who have no "skin" in the
system. It may go at the expense of those who do.
8. The DNSO can be the vehicle for input from organisations representing
In the end it boils down to trust , I think. From my other posts on the
subject you may see that I am afraid of membership manipulation made easy
by using the conventional media (or large cyber corporations like AOL or
MSFT) to recruit members selectively.
I am not against an unlimited franchise, but i would like to see it come
about in stages, as the trust in the ICANN process grows.
See my proposed model http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html
Of course I could change my mind, like you did , but I have to hear real
convincing argument from the proponents on all those points above.
http://www.democracy.org.nz/ <http://www.democracy.org.nz/> model.html