Re[2]: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Dennis,

Wednesday, September 06, 2000, 4:16:40 PM, you wrote:

> Hi William --

> I take exception to your claim that IDNO, as an organization, cannot be a
> constituency.

Dennis, no independent organization can be a constituency.  Look up
the word.   The constituency is a part of the DNSO, not an independent
organization.  The IDNO can certainly organize itself, and participate
in creating a foundation for a constituency, that would include
non-IDNO members as well, but a constituency cannot, by definition, BE
an outside organization.  It is instead, as you say, a self organized
group of people, which is a part of the DNSO structure.

> True it has been riven by dissent --- but the measure of any constituency
> is precisely its ability to permit conflicting viewpoints.  Of all
> constituencies, the individuals' should be expected to deliver healthy, if
> not raucus, internal disagreement.  On this front, IDNO has proven highly
> successful:  it has resisted capture by pockets of members, has continued

This is a joke right? The IDNO was capture by a very small group of
members, and succeeded because one person had a near dictorial control
over all the organs of the organization.  The IDNO is and was a
failure.  And frankly, it has failed to organize anything.  Any new
"members" have not participated in anything IDNO specific, and
frankly, probably have no idea of the history or why the IDNO effort
has in effect failed.

> Personally I feel that the constituency model has been proven a failure.
> Most constituencies are little more than committees of a great trade
> association.

I agree with you completely here.

> If DNSO wants to give ICANN a healthy dose of democracy, it
> should stop dithering and act on the repeated requests of the General
> Assembly to resolve the matter.

I agree. A domain owners constituency should exist, but it will NOT
solve the problems of the DNSO.  And that constituency should NOT
exist as any organization, regardless of whether it is the IDNO, the
ADOR, or any other specific organization.  The constituency should be
a loosely organized structure defining who qualifies as a member, and
very little more, like the current constituencies.

Giving constituency status to an organization like the IDNO confers
way too much power on a small group of people, who have proven their
inability to act in the best interests of the group as a whole.

> I realize that you've had a bitter personal battle with some members of
> IDNO, but shutting down an individuals'
> constituency really is like throwing out the proverbial baby.

My comments did nothing to shut down the idea of a domain owners
constituency.  I merely pointed out that the IDNO has no business
being considered as a constituency in and of itself.  No organization
does.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html