RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

["McMeikan, Andrew" <andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>]

I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject line.

in general there are 
1)the mass of users 
2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall net
3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part of the
internet
4)some can exercise control of several computers  that are part of the
internet
5)some control large numbers of computers on the internet
6)some control vast chunks of internet resources both computers and pipes
7) ICANN wants one root to bind them


I think that we need to explicitly specify the level to be represented,
e.g.. IDNO requires 3, at-large implies 2
Individuals constituency sounds like it is open to 1 (although active
participation would bump them into 2)

I would love to see a constituency at level 3  recognised but at any lower
level it would need mass numbers of members to hold any authority to speak
on their behalf.

Please re-word the motion such that IC is defined or referenced to a
previous definition. I am likely to second once done.

Does it require:
* control of at least one DNS style domain name
* a non-transient computer  publicly connected (is not a number just another
name?)
* contribution of content (almost everybody, but there are now freeweb sites
poping up on freenet and there is no real physical computer that you can pin
down and Freenet Name Service may one day rival DNS {one can dream})

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Joop Teernstra [SMTP:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 08, 2001 7:50 AM
> To:	ga@dnso.org
> Subject:	Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> holders'  constituency (IC)
> 
> On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
> >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> >references to this organization.
> >
> 
> The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
> This is why I speak of an IC.
> 
> However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
> considerans.
> The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.
> 
> Pray tell, what makes a bottom-up self organizing process legitimate in
> your eyes?
> Only the blessing by the ICANN Board, perhaps? Crises are nothing new in
> online organizations. I'm just witnessing another one in MINC.
> 
> For clarity, let me repeat the motion itself:
> 
> I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate
> acknowledgement 
> of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in accordance with its
> Bylaws.
> 
> I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution
> recommending
> that the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC or the
> "approval in
> principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.
> 
> Any seconds for this motion?
> 
> 
> 
> -joop
> 
> 
> --
> 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
--
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