Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency, 
> > which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders 
> > constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering 
> > them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.  
> > [The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names 
> > is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in 
> > housing policy.]
> [...]
> 
> There is some sort of a (political, democratic) principle that those who
> pay (a special) tax have a say in how the money is spent.

There are lots of democratic principles.

> In fact I think
> democracy somehow started this way historically.

One of the major conflicts in the US Constitutional debates was the
issue of whether only owners of property should have the vote.  The
problem with that perspective was summarized in a statement I have seen
attributed to Ben Franklin.  It goes something like this:

    "A man owns an ass.  He can vote.  The ass dies.  The man cannot 
    vote.  Who owns the vote?"

["Ass" is an old term for a donkey.  The pun was Franklins.]

> Domain name owners pay ICANN a tax of $0.33 yearly.
> 
> Does this mean others, who merely use domains, should have no say? Of
> course not. But those who pay the $0.33 should have an extra say, I would
> say.

Sure.  And since according to NSI more than 80% of domains are
registered for commercial use, it follows that business should have 80%
of the representation in the DNSO.  But since ISPs put up most of the 
money that actually runs the Internet, maybe they should have larger 
representation.  But wait -- it is the registries and registrars that 
are the direct regulatees of ICANN -- they should obviously have a 
bigger say than they currently do (the registries originally suggested 
that they should have 50% of the representation...).  But the NCC 
argues that on moral grounds *it* has a special place in the ICANN 
structure. 

Most constituencies have arguments that they use and largely believe 
that should grant them special status in the ICANN structure...

The primary purpose of an at-large constituency, as I have used the
term, is not to give representation to individuals, or individual domain
name holders.  Instead, the purpose is *representational closure*.  By
design, it is supposed to give representation to *every possible* legal
entity -- individual, corporation, whatever.  The various entities 
involved would probably all feel that they were under-represented.  But 
*everybody* feels that they are under-represented.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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