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

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

At 10:32 8/05/01 +0800, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
>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

I think I now understand where you are coming from. 
Most Individual DN owners, who own websites will fall under your 3)
They have control over the access to their content, either directly,
because they own the machine, or indirectly, because they have contracted a
webhost.

However, an Individual Domain used for email only may not "control" a
single computer. Yes, owners of such domains have an equal stake in the DNS
and should be allowed to be part of an IC.
The IDNO has formulated (art 4) a pretty workable but maybe too inclusive
definition of an Individual DN owner.

Would you want to keep those who control larger networks  [ your  5) or 6)]
 (even if they are individuals) out of an IC?
They do have different interests , I grant you that.

Some want to have a constituency of "Internet resource providers" (like a
mom&pop biz constituency, this makes sense, IMHO),  others, sysadmins like
Mr Pacific Root, want to play .god   :-)

I agree with Bill Lovell that it would be very helpful to reserve the
constituency for  the "typical"  Individual DN owners make sure it  speaks
credibly for them. It's the old "capture" issue. 
Large numbers  provide protection against capture. 
Large numbers will not join, until a constituency is recognized in principle.

-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