RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Members will naturally self-organize into groups once the list becomes
unmanageable under the opposing model a. Under this model, (model b) you are
imposing a barrier to entry in that Individuals would have to join yet
another group/ association before membership of IDNH was allowed. I don't
support this "top down" model for that reason.

I agree with Chris and David 100% this needs further discussion after the
consituency is in place, but first we need to agree there is to be IDNH
constituency (did we do that by formality yet?), who is eligible to join
(the other thread on this topic) and what is their purpose in life and how
it will be accomplished, otherwise we have an empty vessel.

For now, can we agree something on the two basic models goes into the
wg-report and ask Jefsey to add the two opposing viewpoints (Joop for model
a) and David for model b)) to the idho.org repository for centers of
interest, or what is your suggestion?


Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Chris McElroy
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:12 AM
To: DPF
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria


While I support the opposite model and have reasons I'd like to present in a
future discussion with you and others, I agree 100%. First we need to get a
Constituency in place, then we can talk more about those issues. Starting as
Direct members does not mean it would stay that way. The membership would
initially be manageable and could begin to discuss issues. As the Membership
grows, and it will grow, further changes may be necessary and new members
would be able to have their say. So for now, focusing on having the IDNHC is
what we should do for now.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria


> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:17:45 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> ><They are the two basic models.  One could actually have a model which
> >allows both but that can complicate things.  There are pros and cons
> >to each model of course.>
> >
> >I'm glad we agree on the basic models, but can you expand on the pros and
> >cons of each?
>
> Joop has posted on the perceived benefits of having the constituency
> made up individuals only so I won't repeat his work there.
>
> I will elaborate on the perceived advantages of having the
> constituency made up of associations of individual name holders.  The
> main advantages are what I see as weaknesses in the other model.
>
> 1) I don't think the other model will work well when membership grows
> from say 150 to let's say 3,000 or so.  Can you imagine what the
> members discussion list will be like - impossible to manage.

>
> 2) If the constituency basically consists of direct memberships you
> face the possibility of tyranny of the majority in that if 51% support
> one position then there is no representation at all for the minority
> 49%.
>
> 3) Not all individual domain name holders will have similar beliefs
> and interest and rather than try and force them all together in the
> constituency I believe you will get more people involved by allowing
> people to all form their own association and have the constituency
> consist of a council of representatives from them, proportional to the
> membership of each.  You could well get country based assns, regional
> based assns, policy based assns and people will join the one they
> support.
>
> There is more I can post in favour of this model but I doubt time
> exists at this stage for us to try and gain definitive support  for
> one model over another.  I beleive the principle of having the
> constituency is paramount and one almost needs a dedicated working
> group to establish structure and criteria for the constituency once it
> is accepted in principle.
>
> DPF
> ________________________________________________________________________
> <david at farrar dot com>
> NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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
>

--
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

--
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