[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
Michael and all.
Michael you pose some interesting points here.. Further elaboration
on some of those points stated/discussed below...
Michael Froomkin wrote:
> Ok. I'll try again.
>
> I assumed from your question that you were asking whether such a small
> group could reasonably claim recognition on behalf of all the
> individuals potentially eligible to join the constituency. This is, I
> would think, a reasonable question, indeed one that might be
> generalized.
>
> I was wondering, therefore, whether other constituencies, which were
> recognized, had numbers sufficient to blunt a similar query.
I guess this depends on your interpretation of the term "Recognized"
and by whom. Are you referring to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board
or are you referring to those members of those potential "Constituencies"
or other organizations? Clarity here is of the most paramount of
importance, I would think....
> I do not
> recall this question being raised a the time, so I presume that the
> numbers are indeed large, as there are for example so many millions of
> trademark holders, and commercial interests. [In some cases, trade
> associations are members, which provides one type of representation,
> albeit at a remove.] But I don't know that, and was hoping for
> confirmation of that fact; so far no one has offered it (it may be in
> the archive somewhere, but I'm on vacation and my connectivity is
> expensive and poor right now).
>
> None of this, I insist, should be read as an expression of support or
> opposition to the recognition of IDNO, a subject on which I do not
> express opinion. Rather, it is curiosity about the legitimacy of the
> other constituencies. Or, if you prefer, the relative legitimacy of
> them, sparked by the original message in this thread.
How and whom, again determines the "Legitimacy" of any proposed
constituency? The ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, or the membership
of the ICANN itself, or is it possible that the members of that potential
Constituency make that determination themselves? Again, clarity
is of paramount of importance here, I would think....
>
>
> I also express no opinion on how the participants in the IDNO wars
> should spend their time.
Wars? To what precisely do you refer to??
>
>
> I will say this much. As those of us on the ICANN Watch site,
> http://www.icannwatch.org , keep saying, ICANN suffers from a legitimacy
> deficit at present. The absence of some means of representing the views
> of ordinary domain name holders combined with the questionable desire to
> make "technical" decisions that go to matters of legal rights in a
> domain name rather than mere routing and allocation, are serious
> problems for the organization.
ICANN suffers form many beginnings of legitimacy, not just ordinary or
individual domain name holders, as we all know so well...
>
>
> I thank you for your participation in this dialog. If you or another
> reader happen to have the relevant numbers at your fingertips, I would
> be most grateful.
>
> R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I confess I don't understand the question, but I suspect it is in
> > relationship with how many people voted in the IDNO vs. in the other
> > constituencies.
> >
> > In this context, let me make my thinking clear.
> >
> > My point, in raising the "only 35" problem was simply that I would
> > concentrate on proselitism vs. concentrating on complaining about
> > non-recognition.
> >
> > I am sure that, if instead of 35 people we had 350, the things would be
> > radically different.
> > The methods used up to now, IMHO, have not been the best ones to gather wide
> > support. To complain and insist in drawing the line between the "management"
> > of the structure we want to enter and the holy mission of our group does not
> > attract the average people (that are not holy fighters but want just to
> > participate).
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 11:27 AM
> > > To: Joop Teernstra
> > > Cc: GAETANO, Roberto; ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > Could someone please fill me in on
> > > 1) how the total number of eligible voters compares to the
> > > number in the
> > > already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?
> > > 2) how the % voting (or actual # voting) compares to the
> > > numbers in the
> > > already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?
> > >
> > > We can then debate the relevance of these numbers....
> > >
> > > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 10:42 AM 27/07/1999 +0200, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >To have new individuals joining the DNSO and promoting the
> > > cause of the
> > > > >individual DN holders constituency will be more effective
> > > than claiming that
> > > > >the previous pollings were inaccurate.
> > > > >
> > > > Roberto,
> > > >
> > > > I did not say anything about accuracy.
> > > > What I'm saying is that a constituency is not co-opted by
> > > the existing ones.
> > > >
> > > > >In fact, if I understand well the results of the latest
> > > elections in the
> > > > >IDNO, you had only 35 voting members, a large part of
> > > which claim that they
> > > > >don't want to have any connection with a corrupted and
> > > captured DNSO +
> > > > >ICANN. Maybe the real problem lies there.
> > > > >
> > > > You said it, not I. :-)
> > > >
> > > > 88 members had the right to vote, of which 35 voted. Not a
> > > bad turnout. If
> > > > you know what a large part of these voters "claim", you
> > > know more than me.
> > > > If they were not interested in the DNSO,or ICANN, why would
> > > they elect
> > > > people who support IDNO membership of the DNSO?
> > > > The IDNO has been kept out. This fact has defined it so
> > > far. Maybe the real
> > > > problem lies there.
> > > >
> > > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> > > > the Cyberspace Association,
> > > > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > > > http://www.idno.org
> > >
> > > --
> > > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > > --> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> --> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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