(Fwd) RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Joop:

On 8 May 2001, at 22:03, 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.

Really?  I am building a LAN at my home with 3 servers and 4 
workstations running different OS's that I want to become familiar with.  I
have serveral domain names personally. I want to learn more about
networking (physical) and programming. Why am I different from an
individual with one or two domains and a home PC or a mom&pop 
business
(which I happen to have).  I have both non-commercial public interest 
sites
and a commercial site that I will now host on my own servers instead of
having someone else host them.

> 
> 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 do hope you will leave ad hominems out of posts.  Most sysadmins 
have rather unique ideas.  Most of the ones I do know have similar 
geeky attittudes.  For their own networks they do have command.  
Many also have personal domains and should not be excluded from an 
IC.  FYI, small businesses like that have the same stake in this issue as
any other small business.  I play .god in my small business too.  It is 
my
responsibility.  

I think you will find that people like Bradley would be very happy to
participate in such a constituency if it is membership driven with one 
vote
per registrant regardless of the number of domains held.

> 
> 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@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