Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > >         Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
> > > him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
> > >         I think Bill Lovell is referring to
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
> > > there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
> > > functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
> > > representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
> > > that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
> > > constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
> > > coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
> > > because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
> > > the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
> > > individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
> > > either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
> > > constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
> > > plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
> > > no role" argument.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to
> > -- thank you for digging it out): > But I don't see "individual"as a
> > "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial > registrants" or
> > "non-commercial registrant". I believe that is what I said he said:
> > essentially, individuals had no function and thus needed no
> > representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical functions,
> > since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
> > "function" in that sense (i.e., in the same way that individuals had
> > no function). So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may
> > have intended.
>
>         He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
> individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
> (just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
> argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
> should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
> about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
> line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
> "users" is one that should be represented.

Um, I don't think this particular hair can handle any more splitting. What
you say in your last sentence is true, but the issue I was addressing
was what was done at the inception of ICANN -- individuals qua
individuals were not given representation because they had no function.
The only purpose in examining those old bones is to bring out the
initial mind set of the "interim" directors, and see how much of it still
remains.  Much of it does.

Bill


--


The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html


--
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