Re: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO:87] Re: the non-commercial constituency

["A Gehring" <alg@open.org>]

Jeff,

I agree with your premise, that non-commercial interests need to be
included in the model for representation.

It seems to me that many/most non-commercial interest organizations will
find way to represent their member's interests though any/all
constituencies.  It also, seems to me that commercial interests will
find way to represent themselves, in replicate, through the
non-commercial constituency as well.

The whole idea of dividing cyberspace political representation into
separate regions based on interest rather than geography does not seem
to present a very workable solution. The boundary lines are simply not
distinct.  Albeit, I do not favor geographic gerrymandering any more.

Never-the-less, I feel it a better solution to allocate  Name Council
seats to constituencies on an as earned basis; earned through vote of
the 'individual' stakeholders.  e.g. If the leadership of the Registry
Constituency can win 20% of the votes (from individual voters) in
council elections they then earn 20% of the council seats. etc.

There should, also,  be no limit on the number of self forming
constituencies.  However, I could accept an arbitrary and modest
threshold that a constituency be required to meet, such as a minimum
membership.

It can not simply be left up to the ICANN BoD to arbitrarily decide whom
may represent their interests. It is not yet known whom all will be
driven to the brink of becoming interested.

Arnold  Gehring
alg@open.org

Monday, May 31, 1999 8:28 PM, Jeff Williams wrote:
>William Arnold and all,
>
>  I am not quite as religious as William seems to be here.  >;)  It is
>very necessary that the Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency
>be in existence for those Domain Name interests that are truly
>non-commercial.  Otherwise we wind up with a DNSO and an ICANN
>that is completely controlled and at least dominated by only
>commercial interests.  This would be unhealthy for the Internet.
>
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> Amen!  :)
>>
>> On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:01:50 -1200, "A Gehring" <alg@open.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Joop, Michael, Milton, Don, and all,
>> >
>> >Individuals and the power-hungry are not mutually exclusive groups.
>> >
>> >If the DNSO were to only have one constituency, I could accept none
that
>> >did not place service to and representation of the individual as
it's
>> >central theme.  We have now six constituencies, and yet none do
center
>> >their foundations upon the individual.
>> >
>> >My suggestion would be to abandon any further efforts to resurrect
the
>> >Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency.  Resolve instead to form
the
>> >Individual Domain Owner's Constituency.
>> >
>> >Let all individuals resolve their diffused effect into a focused and
>> >inclusive constituency of the IDNO.  Let this become the  Seventh
>> >Constituency of the DNSO and deliver the voice through individuals.
>> >
>> >Let These Individuals send their Leaders; be they hungry for power,
be
>> >they hungry for justice, or be they  hungry for an opportunity to
>> >deliver forethought to all, malice toward none, and humble service
to
>> >the entire Internet Community; go now to the ICANN and there  demand
>> >acceptance of the IDNO as the seventh constituency of her DNSO.
>> >
>> >Arnold  Gehring
>> >alg@open.org
>> >In an Institution where a 'D' is a passing grade:  Getting it one
>> >seventh right is better than getting it all wrong.  "I want the
Vote."
>>
>> --
>> William X. Walsh william@dso.net
>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>> Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>
>> The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go
>> crying to every time you have something
>> to whimper about.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>Contact Number:  972-447-1894
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>