Re: DNSO and Democracy

["J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bsemich@mail.nu>]

Hello Javier;

I expect you may have not spent much time reading RFC 1591, the
inclusion of which is just one reason many of the ccTLD registries (whom
you appear to incorrectly describe as a single block of self-interested
power mongers or some such thing) support the Paris Draft.

Here is a very important excerpt:

Postel                                                          [Page 4]

RFC 1591      Domain Name System Structure and Delegation     March 1994


2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated
      domain, and have a duty to serve the community.

      The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for
      both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global
      Internet community.

      Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
      inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
      "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.

               ---- end of excerpt ---

RFC 1591 also requires that Registries "have the ability to do an
equitable, just, honest, and competent job" and that they "be equitable
to all groups in the domain that request domain names."

We believe those, as well as most of the other requirements of RFC 1591,
are an important base from which to move forward.

With the exception of a few private busnesses with their own interests
at the fore, and who have pushed for some of the elements that ended up
in the Washington Draft, I haven't seen anyone successfully  "stacking
the deck" in the DNSO process, at any of the drafting meetings, or at
the meetings I attended in Barcelona or Monterrey.

Let's work to squeeze out the "self-interested" stuff as you describe it
and be sure *all* the interested parties and current stakeholders
support whatever we can put together to form the final
application/organization. 

Best way to do that is to work to bring together all the people,
organizations and points of view involved, and not to be "against" one
particular draft, but to be "for" a final draft. Don't you think?

This is not a referrendum, I think, where one side wins and another
loses. We all win or lose together <smile>.

Best wishes,

Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
bsemich@mail.nu
.NU Domain (Niue, The South Pacific)



In reply to 07 Feb message from Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>:

>All,

>Would you consider a democracy in which citizens do not have a
>vote, but only a few civil servants vote? Would you call that a
>democracy? 

>How can we then consider for the Internet a model in which the
>power resides in the second level administrators (TLD registries)
>and not in the users? 

>There is only one answer to that, the administrators want to
>maintain the status quo in order ot maintain their actual power.
>Such position is of no use to the Internet, it is only beneficial
>to these few administrators. If we think that the Internet is for
>the users to use, enjoy and develop... maybe they should be the
>ones to define the model in which they want to do it (and, by the
>way, also deciding who are the administrators they want for the
>Internet). This is called democracy. Other systems have other
>names. 

>If the DNSO falls in the hands of people who are concerned about
>their own interests, and not those of the users of the Internet...
>then this is probably very bad news for the Internet.
>Paternalistic attitutes, such as "we know what is good for the
>users better than themselves" also fall in this category.

>Javier
>(who has lived under "other" political systems with people who
>thought that they new better than the citizens)