[Comment-Dnso] Re: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO:87] Re: the non-commercial constituency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Arnold and all,

A Gehring wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I agree with your premise, that non-commercial interests need to be
> included in the model for representation.
>
> It seems to me that many/most non-commercial interest organizations will
> find way to represent their member's interests though any/all
> constituencies.  It also, seems to me that commercial interests will
> find way to represent themselves, in replicate, through the
> non-commercial constituency as well.

  Arnold, this is really the problem with constituencies and points up whey
by design, at least as part of the DNSO model, they are divisive.  A
constituency is by
definition a group of individuals that have a specific interest in their
representation that is realized by the membership and the constituencies
most basic principals and requirements.  Mixing non-commercial and
commercial interests within any one constituency is in and of itself
not a constituency at this basic level of definition.

>
>
> The whole idea of dividing cyberspace political representation into
> separate regions based on interest rather than geography does not seem
> to present a very workable solution. The boundary lines are simply not
> distinct.  Albeit, I do not favor geographic gerrymandering any more.

  I agree that geographically based constituency's don't make sense.
In fact constituencies of any kind make no sense in the basic conscript
of a DNSO.  Yet ICANN in it's infinite wisdom deems otherwise even
against the desire and well known consensus otherwise.

>
>
> Never-the-less, I feel it a better solution to allocate  Name Council
> seats to constituencies on an as earned basis; earned through vote of
> the 'individual' stakeholders.  e.g. If the leadership of the Registry
> Constituency can win 20% of the votes (from individual voters) in
> council elections they then earn 20% of the council seats. etc.

  This would be one way to effect a constituency of sorts indeed, but it
to would be divisive in nature once established

>
>
> There should, also,  be no limit on the number of self forming
> constituencies.  However, I could accept an arbitrary and modest
> threshold that a constituency be required to meet, such as a minimum
> membership.

  Agreed.

>
>
> It can not simply be left up to the ICANN BoD to arbitrarily decide whom
> may represent their interests. It is not yet known whom all will be
> driven to the brink of becoming interested.

  Also agreed.  In addition it is not the ICANN place to determine what
constituency's there should or should not be within the DNSO.  That
decision should be based on the DNSO at-large membership themselves
or the self forming constituency itself.  However, again we are seeing
that the ICANN Interim Board unilaterally dictate by edict and without the
proper benefit of a completely formed individual membership determine
the fate of many internet stakeholders in direct violation of the White
Paper.

>
>
> Arnold  Gehring
> alg@open.org
>
> Monday, May 31, 1999 8:28 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >William Arnold and all,
> >
> >  I am not quite as religious as William seems to be here.  >;)  It is
> >very necessary that the Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency
> >be in existence for those Domain Name interests that are truly
> >non-commercial.  Otherwise we wind up with a DNSO and an ICANN
> >that is completely controlled and at least dominated by only
> >commercial interests.  This would be unhealthy for the Internet.
> >
> >William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Amen!  :)
> >>
> >> On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:01:50 -1200, "A Gehring" <alg@open.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Joop, Michael, Milton, Don, and all,
> >> >
> >> >Individuals and the power-hungry are not mutually exclusive groups.
> >> >
> >> >If the DNSO were to only have one constituency, I could accept none
> that
> >> >did not place service to and representation of the individual as
> it's
> >> >central theme.  We have now six constituencies, and yet none do
> center
> >> >their foundations upon the individual.
> >> >
> >> >My suggestion would be to abandon any further efforts to resurrect
> the
> >> >Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency.  Resolve instead to form
> the
> >> >Individual Domain Owner's Constituency.
> >> >
> >> >Let all individuals resolve their diffused effect into a focused and
> >> >inclusive constituency of the IDNO.  Let this become the  Seventh
> >> >Constituency of the DNSO and deliver the voice through individuals.
> >> >
> >> >Let These Individuals send their Leaders; be they hungry for power,
> be
> >> >they hungry for justice, or be they  hungry for an opportunity to
> >> >deliver forethought to all, malice toward none, and humble service
> to
> >> >the entire Internet Community; go now to the ICANN and there  demand
> >> >acceptance of the IDNO as the seventh constituency of her DNSO.
> >> >
> >> >Arnold  Gehring
> >> >alg@open.org
> >> >In an Institution where a 'D' is a passing grade:  Getting it one
> >> >seventh right is better than getting it all wrong.  "I want the
> Vote."
> >>
> >> --
> >> William X. Walsh william@dso.net
> >> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> >> Fax:(209) 671-7934
> >>
> >> The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go
> >> crying to every time you have something
> >> to whimper about.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208