[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
Ok. I'll try again.
I assumed from your question that you were asking whether such a small
group could reasonably claim recognition on behalf of all the
individuals potentially eligible to join the constituency. This is, I
would think, a reasonable question, indeed one that might be
generalized.
I was wondering, therefore, whether other constituencies, which were
recognized, had numbers sufficient to blunt a similar query. I do not
recall this question being raised a the time, so I presume that the
numbers are indeed large, as there are for example so many millions of
trademark holders, and commercial interests. [In some cases, trade
associations are members, which provides one type of representation,
albeit at a remove.] But I don't know that, and was hoping for
confirmation of that fact; so far no one has offered it (it may be in
the archive somewhere, but I'm on vacation and my connectivity is
expensive and poor right now).
None of this, I insist, should be read as an expression of support or
opposition to the recognition of IDNO, a subject on which I do not
express opinion. Rather, it is curiosity about the legitimacy of the
other constituencies. Or, if you prefer, the relative legitimacy of
them, sparked by the original message in this thread.
I also express no opinion on how the participants in the IDNO wars
should spend their time.
I will say this much. As those of us on the ICANN Watch site,
http://www.icannwatch.org , keep saying, ICANN suffers from a legitimacy
deficit at present. The absence of some means of representing the views
of ordinary domain name holders combined with the questionable desire to
make "technical" decisions that go to matters of legal rights in a
domain name rather than mere routing and allocation, are serious
problems for the organization.
I thank you for your participation in this dialog. If you or another
reader happen to have the relevant numbers at your fingertips, I would
be most grateful.
R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I confess I don't understand the question, but I suspect it is in
> relationship with how many people voted in the IDNO vs. in the other
> constituencies.
>
> In this context, let me make my thinking clear.
>
> My point, in raising the "only 35" problem was simply that I would
> concentrate on proselitism vs. concentrating on complaining about
> non-recognition.
>
> I am sure that, if instead of 35 people we had 350, the things would be
> radically different.
> The methods used up to now, IMHO, have not been the best ones to gather wide
> support. To complain and insist in drawing the line between the "management"
> of the structure we want to enter and the holy mission of our group does not
> attract the average people (that are not holy fighters but want just to
> participate).
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 11:27 AM
> > To: Joop Teernstra
> > Cc: GAETANO, Roberto; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
> >
> >
> > Could someone please fill me in on
> > 1) how the total number of eligible voters compares to the
> > number in the
> > already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?
> > 2) how the % voting (or actual # voting) compares to the
> > numbers in the
> > already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?
> >
> > We can then debate the relevance of these numbers....
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:42 AM 27/07/1999 +0200, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
> > >
> > > >To have new individuals joining the DNSO and promoting the
> > cause of the
> > > >individual DN holders constituency will be more effective
> > than claiming that
> > > >the previous pollings were inaccurate.
> > > >
> > > Roberto,
> > >
> > > I did not say anything about accuracy.
> > > What I'm saying is that a constituency is not co-opted by
> > the existing ones.
> > >
> > > >In fact, if I understand well the results of the latest
> > elections in the
> > > >IDNO, you had only 35 voting members, a large part of
> > which claim that they
> > > >don't want to have any connection with a corrupted and
> > captured DNSO +
> > > >ICANN. Maybe the real problem lies there.
> > > >
> > > You said it, not I. :-)
> > >
> > > 88 members had the right to vote, of which 35 voted. Not a
> > bad turnout. If
> > > you know what a large part of these voters "claim", you
> > know more than me.
> > > If they were not interested in the DNSO,or ICANN, why would
> > they elect
> > > people who support IDNO membership of the DNSO?
> > > The IDNO has been kept out. This fact has defined it so
> > far. Maybe the real
> > > problem lies there.
> > >
> > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> > > the Cyberspace Association,
> > > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > > http://www.idno.org
> >
> > --
> > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > --> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
> >
> >
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--