Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Cindy Merry wrote:
> 
> Bret:  There are some issues about the registers' rights themselves, but I
> truly believe that when you go to register your domain name it should be
> simple to be signed up as a member of the Internet community and to receive
> information about ICANN and all these other organizations.  The additional
> problem that everyone in here is talking about is the "perception" that
> these registers somehow represent you or me, and secondly that those people
> with multitudes of domain names will end up having a greater say in what is
> done.  So, is it a vote (say) per domain name or a vote (say) per person?
> ...and how do you control all of that...?  and we are having quite a
> discussion on what consensus means...  and we are having a discussion on
> what the ulterior motives of everyone is(are) ... and we are trying to
> figure out how funding should work  ...and we are trying to understand
> other multitudes of problems with various complexities and shades of
> meaning being put on them by all interested parties.  It'll be fun to see
> how all this gets put in simple English (pardon the nationalism exhibited)
> and than how we all obfuscate the simplicity so that none of us will be
> sure we really want consensus on anything suggested.
> 
> Are you having fun yet ?  Cindy Merry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Bret Busby
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:55 PM
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.
> 
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > On 23:25 07/01/01, Karl Auerbach said:
> > > >No problem:  The DNSO is to produce well reasoned policy decisions
> based
> > > >based on fair and objective processes that permit all interested
> parties
> > > >to participate on an equal basis.
> > >
> > > and we should read "policy propositions" and on "fair, qualified and
> > > objective" Otherwise it would not be consistent withe rest of your
> > > positions?
> >
> > Actually I prefer the word "decisions".  I'd like to be able to sit in my
> > comfy board-of-directors chair and ask only whether the DNSO policy
> > decision was reached via well defined processes in which every who wants
> > to participate had the opportunity to do so on par with everyone else.
> >
> > For the most part, I'd prefer it if the board rarely, if ever, exercised
> > its power to make DNS policy but rather left it up to well run ICANN
> > public policymaking processes.
> >
> > Of course, if one reads the ICANN bylaws as they exist today that is what
> > they very clearly say - but as we have seen from the rejection of my
> > "request for reconsideration" on that point, ICANN's official policy
> makes
> > that bylaw language nothing more than meaningless surplussage.
> >
> >                 --karl--
> 
> As a new subscriber to this list, i find some of the terms, quite
> humorous, in their context;
> "fair and objective processes that permit all interested parties
> > > >to participate on an equal basis."
> and
> "well defined processes in which every who wants
> > to participate had the opportunity to do so on par with everyone else."
> 
> I found this mailing list, and, the opportunity to participate,
> completely by accident. I don't even remember how I found it.
> 
> I suggest that many millions of people who are clients of ISP's, across
> the world, would like to know what is happening in this area, and, want
> to be ale to particpate, by being allowed to have their say, and,
> therefore, input, into the procedures involved, but, who do not know
> anything about this.
> 
> Thus, the Internet, and, the agencies controlling it, such as ICANN,
> appear to most people, to be dark and mysterious bodies, which operate
> in ways, and, with policies, known only to the selct few, with the
> common people having no input.
> 
> I suggest that ISP's should be asked to email all their clients, with
> information about the processes involved, and, with information
> regarding how their clients can participate in governing the Internet,
> through their input.
> 
> Then, each person, who has an Internet accessing account, or, a person
> representing each organisation that has an Internet accessing account,
> could be allowed an opportunity to have input.
> 
> Until such actions occur, the Internet, and, its governing agencies,
> will still be restricted to a lucky few, or, they will be perceived as
> such.
> 
> I believe that it was a USA president, who said " governement of the
> people, by the people, for the people", or, something like that. To
> attain such a degree of democracry, and, democratic representation, I
> suggest that the above actions, via the ISP's, need to be performed, to
> make the Internet a democraticallt run institution.
> 
> Only that way, will all who have legitimate interests, be represented
> equally and fairly.
> 
> --
> 
> Bret Busby
> 
> Armadale, West Australia
> 
> ......................................
> "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
> answer means."
>  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>  - Douglas Adams, 1988
> ......................................

Hello, Cindy.

I don't know about me, but you certainly seem to be having fun :)

Regarding one of the issues to which you referred, about the domain name
holders having votes, and, whether it should be one vote, per domain
name, etc; you will probably, by now, have seen my message, where I
objected to domain name holders, or, owners, or whatever (a rose by any
other name, ...), being accorded special privileges, and, a class of
their own, as I had been cheated out of a domain name, which a registrar
had sold to a pirate. Now, if a pirate has a hundred, or, a thousand,
domain names, that it is holding for ransom, depending on which model is
being used, the pirate could have a vote for each domain name, that it
is holding for ransom, thus compounding its wrongs.

The integrity of a system, that rewards those who wrong others, becomes
a matter for concern, when the crooks are so rewarded.

Thus, I suggested, in my model, a vote (or, however you want to put it),
for each individual who is an Internet subscriber, or, where the
Internet subscriber is an organisation, one person representing the
organisation.

Thus, each Internet subscriber is represented (providing the subscriber
is aware of the opportunity to represent), equally, and fairly (well, to
some extent, anyway).

Now, here's one for you; if domain name holders sre so elite, as to have
their own class, and privileges (and a box at the races :), what about
holders of subdomains?

I have a subdomain. Does that mean that I get the keys to the executive
toilet, and, the box at the races? Or, because it is a subdomain, is a
separate class in existence, for holders of subdomains? Do we get a
constituency, and, all the other goodies?

Hmmm.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html