RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

according to http://www.open-rsc.org/inc/board/

there is only one board member.

In any case, I feel that this is definitely off-topic.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 2:15 AM
To: Bruce; Marsh, Miles (Gene); jo-uk@rcn.com; Karl Auerbach
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC


1) I think it's off-topic for this particular subject thread.
2) Many of us are already using the ORSC root-zone, if not the servers. MHSC
is actually deploying root-servers of our own.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce [mailto:bmjames@swbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:53 AM
> To: Marsh, Miles (Gene); jo-uk@rcn.com; Karl Auerbach
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I would like to ask a question of the group regarding the Open Root
> Server Confederation (ORSC). They appear to have several TLDs already
> in service. What impact does this have upon this group? A link to
> their website is listed below:
>
>
> http://www.open-rsc.org
>
>
> Thank you for you comments.
>
> Bruce James
>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com>
> To: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
> Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
>
>
> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joanna,
>
> On the contrary, I believe your view may be the unrealistic one.  I
> have to agree with Karl that the potential for infinite constiuencies
> exists as a quagmire, and should be avoided.
>
> As you said below, there are "obvious gaps" that can be addressed.
> Most of these have been *identified* already.  I believe it is
> imperative now to fill these "obvious gaps", not identify new
> constituencies.
>
> Gene...
>
> - - -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:46 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> Importance: High
>
>
> Karl, I respect your position, but is it realistic? Individuals
> register
> with a particular party, not because they agree 100% with all its
> views, but
> because on balance, it's position is the most agreeable, or because
> alternative choices are intensely disagreeable. As you know only too
> well,
> it takes a very special person with talent, imagination and
> motivational
> skills to seek out and rally groups of like minded people willing to
> join
> together and create a new group/ political party from scratch, not to
> mention enormous resources. Most  people want clear choices laid out
> before
> them and imho there is nothing wrong with Peter de Blanc's suggestion
> to
> identify factions that are not currently represented, as a practical
> approach to solving present difficulties and filling some, if not all
> of the
> most obvious gaps (such as STLD and IDNH as per Jefsey Morfin). Added
> to
> that, there may be infinite initiatives presented directly to the
> BoD,
> but I
> suggest that at least a significant minority will never be able to
> create
> the opportunity for themselves, however willing they may be.
>
> Joanna Lane
> Individual Domain Name Holder
> Self Employed
>
> - - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:03 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
>
>
>
> > I believe the DNSO should have a constituency structure. The
> formation of
> > Internet Policy is inevitable, even if only to express that the
> policy
> > should be "mostly hands-off".
>
> Perhaps I'm being more dense than usual, but I don't see the logic.
>
> Perhaps we are using the same words in different ways?  I don't mind
> "constituencies" as long as they are declared by their own members,
> have
> no official standing, and have no voice except as reflected by the
> combined voices of those who chose to support its position.
>
> My objection is to "official" constituencies - that represent some
> third
> party's dictat as to who shall be lumped with whom on what issues and
> with
> what degree of voting power.
>
> > Perhaps if we could identify the factions than are NOT represented
> now, we
> > could make some progress.
>
> That is an infinite list, one that is not amenable to enumeration.
> The
> subtleties of individual opinion are not consistent with the coercive
> grouping that are the present "constituency" structure.
>
> The atoming unit of interest is the invidual person. Thus we ought to
> allow each person to decide for himself/herself how to best proceed
> and
> with whom to join forces, if anyone.  If people chose to join
> together,
> who are we to say no?  If people chose not to join togeher, again,
> who
> are we to say no?
>
> - --karl--
>
>
>
> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
>
> iQA/AwUBOktYhnKYiraY8fZCEQJhpwCfcxbwU/tIW+3h9QmCjIgeWo8eDB4AnRZ/
> LD7ti/Q8B+0Mx8XDA+6oPkNB
> =v8l+
> - -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
> Comment: Signed and Sealed.
>
> iQA/AwUBOkth1i5+FY5y8qdIEQLuVwCg/RSU6BTiMcS5tyk4Ov63aeLGrBwAoNwQ
> YoDw1aKJLL5VpLlEaTdwPUpG
> =wJB5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>