Re: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 06:18:01AM -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> Second, it's very unusual for people to seek out roles they do not feel
> qualified to undertake,

True, but the problem in the domain name policy arena is that people
simply don't realize that they are not qualified to take on various
roles.  Domain name issues are in fact extremely complex, but there are
various simplistic views available that mask this underlying complexity. 

 so I do not agree with Miles (Gene) Marsh that they
> would make a technical comment about ICANN without fully understanding the
> implications, in which case, it would be entirely appropriate.

But people don't realize their ignorance.  For example, the Internet
technical community overwhelmingly rejects the notion of "alternate
roots", but there is a significant community of people who actively
promote various "alternate root" schemes.  None of these people are
involved in the actual design of the DNS protocols, and very of them are
really technical heavyweights in any aspect of the Internet, but they
believe that they are, and that is all that matters.

As a matter of social fact it is common to give deference to technical 
specialities.  If you open the door to the cockpit of a 747, and say 
"hey, man let me fly the plane", you will be removed.  More directly, 
while general matters of where the planes go are determined by economic 
demand and other social factors, when it gets to the detailed routing of 
flight paths, the carrying capacity of airplanes, and a host of other 
things, we leave that entirely to specialists.

> Also, the people Gene is now proposing to exclude from DNSO are entitled to
> understand the nature and extent of objections to their participation and I
> imagine a summary of opposing positions would be included in the report with
> respect to possible IDNH constituency formulation (whether this is to fit
> into existing constituency structure or yet to be formulated new structure.)
> 
> Therefore, I think it would be very helpful if Gene and/or like minded
> members would clarify the salient points along the following lines:-
> 
> 1. Who are the groups of  "real end users"  you would exclude from DNSO?

I don't think anyone was speaking of total exclusion -- input from all 
is important.  It is just how that input is structured.

> 2. What are the technical qualifications you would introduce as a barrier to
> entry to DNSO?
> 3. Which of ICANN's functions would you say it is appropriate for "real end
> users" to comment on?
> 4. Conversely, which of ICANN's functions would you say it is inappropriate
> to "real end users" to comment on?

Once again, the question isn't whether people can *comment*.  The issue 
is who flies the plane.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain