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

[marc@venster.nl]

On Tue, 8 May 2001, at 22:03 [=GMT+1200], Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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.

1. I am in full support of any attempts to get a IDN constituency off
the ground, and specifically I support/second Joop's motion. Even if
it might not be the perfect solution (I have no reason to think that),
we have to get started, really, after all this time, esp. given the
speed with which the net develops. Things for the new TLDs are moving
already even before the contracts are signed. So why linger here?

2. I see a lot of practical difficulties in determining who does or
does not fulfil the criteria (however we may formulate them) for being
part of on IDN constituency. What is wrong with one domain one
vote? The electoral registry is already in place, so to speak. So why
not allow any domain owner to join? Maybe then rename to DN
constituency without the I? The stakeholders in the DNSO are the
owners/registrants of domain names, whatever they do with
them: business, non-commercial, individual, religious etc. 
I would limit things (within the context of ICANN as it is right now,
to registrants of gTLDs. The ccTLDs have (in part at least) their own
ways of doing registrant participation. The policies for ccTLDs are
largely outside of ICANN's control anyway.

3. To keep out those who have merely unused domains, I would suggest
that only domains that receive email (and therefore also resolve) can
have a vote. Perhaps a special email address? "Postmaster@" goes to
/dev/null in many places, and is also, IIRC, now out of the
relevant RFC.
Maybe: dnso-vote@ ? Something that may not conflict with any normal
address in any case.

marc@schneiders.org
marc@1domain1vote.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