Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Kent and everyone,

  Your arguments are entertaining, but rarely relevant.  This one of
your below is no exception IMHO.

  The Internet, and that includes the DNS, was paid for predominantly
by US tax payers amongst some other European tax payers.  All of them
therefore have and "Ass" (Franklins definition).   So, I am finding it
difficult where your argument refutes Mr. Joop's....

  Car to elaborate further maybe???....

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency,
> > > which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders
> > > constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering
> > > them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.
> > > [The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names
> > > is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in
> > > housing policy.]
> > [...]
> >
> > There is some sort of a (political, democratic) principle that those who
> > pay (a special) tax have a say in how the money is spent.
>
> There are lots of democratic principles.
>
> > In fact I think
> > democracy somehow started this way historically.
>
> One of the major conflicts in the US Constitutional debates was the
> issue of whether only owners of property should have the vote.  The
> problem with that perspective was summarized in a statement I have seen
> attributed to Ben Franklin.  It goes something like this:
>
>     "A man owns an ass.  He can vote.  The ass dies.  The man cannot
>     vote.  Who owns the vote?"
>
> ["Ass" is an old term for a donkey.  The pun was Franklins.]
>
> > Domain name owners pay ICANN a tax of $0.33 yearly.
> >
> > Does this mean others, who merely use domains, should have no say? Of
> > course not. But those who pay the $0.33 should have an extra say, I would
> > say.
>
> Sure.  And since according to NSI more than 80% of domains are
> registered for commercial use, it follows that business should have 80%
> of the representation in the DNSO.  But since ISPs put up most of the
> money that actually runs the Internet, maybe they should have larger
> representation.  But wait -- it is the registries and registrars that
> are the direct regulatees of ICANN -- they should obviously have a
> bigger say than they currently do (the registries originally suggested
> that they should have 50% of the representation...).  But the NCC
> argues that on moral grounds *it* has a special place in the ICANN
> structure.
>
> Most constituencies have arguments that they use and largely believe
> that should grant them special status in the ICANN structure...
>
> The primary purpose of an at-large constituency, as I have used the
> term, is not to give representation to individuals, or individual domain
> name holders.  Instead, the purpose is *representational closure*.  By
> design, it is supposed to give representation to *every possible* legal
> entity -- individual, corporation, whatever.  The various entities
> involved would probably all feel that they were under-represented.  But
> *everybody* feels that they are under-represented.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis


_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
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