RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Milton,

>
>Who is to determine who "represents" individuals? You, Roberto?
>A group of Board members, 4 of whom were never elected by
>anybody, 9 of whom were elected with grand totals of 5 votes,
>10 votes?
>
>What you are telling me is precisely that such subjective and
>highly politicized criteria will indeed be applied again. Now why
>should anyone go to the enormous trouble to organize a
>constituency knowing that?

Because they have an interest in it to succeed?

Let me make an example.
When workers became self-organized in what has eventually become the unions, 
the point was not to have endorsement in principle from "the powers to be", 
but to define what was wrong (from the workers POV), to get as many people 
involved, and from that on the organization was built.
All Constituencies currently in the DNSO have some specific (corporative?) 
issues on the table that they want to push. IP have the interests of the TM 
holders, ccTLDs the interests of the national Registries, and so on. So it 
would seem logical to write down a chart of rights of the individual user 
(if we want to target the user), or the individual DN Holder/Registrant (if 
we want to limit to this latter subset).
I have some points, just off my head:
- the unbalance of the current UDRP
- the interest of the "small guy" in the registration of names (which, IMHO, 
is not limited to individuals in the strict sense, but extends to small 
businesses)
And I am sure others may identify more "needs" for a new Constituency.
My opinion is that we have to start from here, to state what problems a new 
Constituency is trying to solve, get people that are victims of the current 
unbalance in power between "big guys"/Trademark owners and "little 
guys"/Individuals interested in the project, and make a proposal.

This group would have solved the "representativity" problem, because they 
would speak for themselves, for their interests at stake, with also the 
openness to include more individuals with similar problems or interests on 
the way.

In other words, I would move from the field of political theory and social 
experimentation to the "practical" grounds of self-organizing to defend 
common interests.
Milton, you for instance, as a member of the academical world and member of 
ACM, are in a very good position to contact people and get them interested 
in participating, but I would assume that you will be able to get people's 
interrest more if you tell them what the programme of the group is.
This is why I consider essential that we lay down a proposal, with purpose 
and charter, we collect signatures, *and then* we knock at the door of the 
NC and/or the Board.
To do the other way around did not work once, and I am afraid will not work 
again either. The problem is not the "high politization", is the fact that 
if you want to have somebody even looking at your case, you have to support 
it with facts and/or with pressure from the people.
If we have few people and no clearly identified practical purpose (i.e. if 
we are unable to "build the case"), maybe we are just proving the fact that 
there is no need for action.

Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
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