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

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 19:06 22/09/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> [on who are "we"]
>The people who want to advance on this issue, and who want to have a 
>better representativity of the diverse interests in the Internet.

O.K. I'll accept that for the moment.

>It does not necessarily identify completely with the Individual Domain 
>Name holders.
>
No, constituencies should identify themselves. What other stakeholder
interests did you have in mind (apart from mom&pop businesses)?  Have they
signalled an interest in the DNSO?

>> ......
>>Why do you want to dilute the Domain Name holder aspect of our
>>representation? 
>
>I don't want to necessarily dilute it, but my reasonment is simple.
>If things stay as they are, in terms of support, we (in the sense above)
> will not go very far. In fact, we will not move at all: we will just 
>have the same answer (or no answer) as before.
>Are we able to bring in other groups to build a wider alliance, and push
> together? My answer is "yes". Will this dilute the "pure" initially 
>envisaged project? "Yes".
>We have to choose between getting something (but not all) and getting 
>nothing.
>

Why do you think the Individual DN holders will get nothing unless they
agree to dilute themselves?
Is the undiluted DN holder interest to much for the NC to bear? :-)
 
<snip>>>

>>Do you mean that  the GA ask Jamie and ISOC to recommend that their
>>Individual Domain Name owning members join the new DNSO 
>constituency....?
>
>No.

Why not, Roberto?  It would help us getting the numbers that Brett wants. 

>I recommend we negotiate to get the full weight of existing 
>organizations to the project of enhancing democracy in the DNSO and 
>enlarging the participation to the decision-making process (that is in 
>the Constituency system and the DNSO, not in the GA).
>

But the full weight of existing organizations (I'm thinking of ISOC) is
exactly what makes it all less transparent.
Especially if these organizations practice a more top-down decisionmaking
process themselves.
Then there is the difficulty of weighting each org. (see the  NCDNHC).
<snip>
>
>And if the vote is "no", would the IDNO oppose the creation of new 
>constituencies that are not exactly according to its wishes?
>

Of course not. The IDNO has never said such a thing.
We look forward to a far-going reform that will truly bring *all*
stakeholder interests represented on the NC.

But the IDNO is not likely to vote on diluting itself, unless it speaks
directly to the powers-that-be and dilution conditions are clearly spelled
out.
This is nothing if not proper negotiating.
We still believe that DN holder interests are quite separate from other DNS
interests.



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

--
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