Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

[Dennis Schaefer <apsdps@mediaone.net>]

Hi William --

As  always,  we agree on much more than we disagree on.  Rather
than argue about the latter, I'm going to second your statements about
the DNSO, and offer my support for any sincere efforts to balance the
interests of small domain name holders against those of intellectual property
owners.

Apropos of which,  we have a great nominee, Jamie Love, seeking to
be named to the DNSO board seat.

Please consider giving him your endorsements.

Best regards


>Dennis



"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Dennis,
>
> Wednesday, September 06, 2000, 4:16:40 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi William --
>
> > I take exception to your claim that IDNO, as an organization, cannot be a
> > constituency.
>
> Dennis, no independent organization can be a constituency.  Look up
> the word.   The constituency is a part of the DNSO, not an independent
> organization.  The IDNO can certainly organize itself, and participate
> in creating a foundation for a constituency, that would include
> non-IDNO members as well, but a constituency cannot, by definition, BE
> an outside organization.  It is instead, as you say, a self organized
> group of people, which is a part of the DNSO structure.
>
> > True it has been riven by dissent --- but the measure of any constituency
> > is precisely its ability to permit conflicting viewpoints.  Of all
> > constituencies, the individuals' should be expected to deliver healthy, if
> > not raucus, internal disagreement.  On this front, IDNO has proven highly
> > successful:  it has resisted capture by pockets of members, has continued
>
> This is a joke right? The IDNO was capture by a very small group of
> members, and succeeded because one person had a near dictorial control
> over all the organs of the organization.  The IDNO is and was a
> failure.  And frankly, it has failed to organize anything.  Any new
> "members" have not participated in anything IDNO specific, and
> frankly, probably have no idea of the history or why the IDNO effort
> has in effect failed.
>
> > Personally I feel that the constituency model has been proven a failure.
> > Most constituencies are little more than committees of a great trade
> > association.
>
> I agree with you completely here.
>
> > If DNSO wants to give ICANN a healthy dose of democracy, it
> > should stop dithering and act on the repeated requests of the General
> > Assembly to resolve the matter.
>
> I agree. A domain owners constituency should exist, but it will NOT
> solve the problems of the DNSO.  And that constituency should NOT
> exist as any organization, regardless of whether it is the IDNO, the
> ADOR, or any other specific organization.  The constituency should be
> a loosely organized structure defining who qualifies as a member, and
> very little more, like the current constituencies.
>
> Giving constituency status to an organization like the IDNO confers
> way too much power on a small group of people, who have proven their
> inability to act in the best interests of the group as a whole.
>
> > I realize that you've had a bitter personal battle with some members of
> > IDNO, but shutting down an individuals'
> > constituency really is like throwing out the proverbial baby.
>
> My comments did nothing to shut down the idea of a domain owners
> constituency.  I merely pointed out that the IDNO has no business
> being considered as a constituency in and of itself.  No organization
> does.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html