Re: [Bounced] Re: [wg-review] constituency composition

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
Please correct me, but I understand you consider things in term of power, 
not in term of  competence.

What a domain name has in common or not with a TM for me is a fact that any 
legal and any techical professional experts can objectively describe. I 
feel that for you such a relation is a political issue to be debated while 
no one cares about even determining what a domain name is.  IMHO your 
approach leads the people to shout agains the "TM lobby" and the TM holders 
and investors to lose a lot of money when reason prevails or the political 
tide reverses.  Does not help anyone in fact.

When I pick my phone or connect the Internet I do not care that the system 
is democratic (?) or not, I want it to work.

The DNSO is here to produce three experts as Directors, to respond to BoD 
domain related questions through consensus and to alert the BoD about new 
opportunities or difficulties in DN area. But if a read you correctly your 
consensus is a political issue (so if 9 people on 10 say 1+1=3 you will 
report 3 to the BoD) I am thereofre no surprised when BoD calls on the 
Staff to correct the NC inputs.

This DNSO of yours is a lobbying arena where you consideri how the ISOC rep 
may be changed, the proportion of NCC members/employees etc... to the point 
you do not even understand that someone can technically represent a 
category of users if he has not been elected and you seem to consistently 
bypass interests, concerns and inputs of millions of people because in a 
previous meeting the guies rising their needs were the minority.

Please correct me as it would make the Internet democracy a tyranny of 
biased figures. I prefer a cooperation of competences (both of technical 
knowledge and experience and of people trust and confidence).

Jefsey

On 18:37 28/12/00, Kent Crispin said:
> > From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> >
> > Sorry, Kent,
> > I do not understand your rationale,
> > On 18:03 27/12/00, Kent Crispin said:
> > >A concrete illustration: the NCC has 160 members; assume for the moment
> > >that Joops organization has 160 members, and becomes the IDNOC.  One of
> > >the NCC members is the ACM, an organization with 80,000 members, last I
> > >looked.  This means that a single individual voting in the IDNO has the
> > >same power as the ACM voting in the NCC.
> >
> > 1. In the DNSO/BC I have one vote as a one employee business. Disney three.
> >      AT&T three. I am therefore worth a lot of AT&T employees.
>
>Actually, I think that associations get three votes, large companies get
>2.  In actual political practice, 1) it turns out that three votes are
>quite substantial; and 2) the homogenization of interest implicit in a
>constituency is a very significant factor -- small businesses and large
>businesses do share common concerns.  In the case of large and small
>businesses, for example, they share a common interest:  none of them
>would turn over control of their business to some arbitrary group of
>people.
>
> > 2. you say Jopp's proposed IDNO would represent million of people. It means
> >      that an IDNOC member woud reprensent 100.000 individual domain name
> >      holders. Seems fair when comparing with the one NCC member with
> >      80.000.
>
>Odd use of the term "represent" -- I guess that you would have to agree
>that I represent you, then.  In the case of a bona fide organization,
>the membership directly or indirectly controls the selection of their
>representative, and the representatives are accountable to the
>membership.
>
> > 3. you support a second Constituency by the ISOC.
>
>I didn't say that.  I said that ISOCs special nature raises interesting
>possibilities.
>
> > We are probably 5000 ISOC Members.  It would mean that 1 IDNO
> > represent 1/22.000.000 of a constituency, 1 NCC remote individual
> > 1/12.800.000 of a constituency, and one ISOC Member 1/5000 of a
> > constituency
>
>Yes, and as ISOC members, if we don't like what our representatives are
>doing, we have a process by which they can be removed.  The 100000
>individuals supposedly "represented" by a single idno member have no
>such process; the members of idno are not accountable to the larger
>potential membership, and have no claim as "representatives".
>
>This is not the case in other constituencies, where there is an actual
>delegation of authority, however informal, from organizations with a
>much larger membership.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain