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

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

Commenting below Chris,
Joanna Lane

Commenting below Joanna
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>; "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria


> 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 agreee that groups will eventually probably be the model. And stand by the
statement that it can start with direct membership until it grows too large.
Fortunately the very thing that makes groups a viable alternative also
allows that by then there are enough members to make those decisions a wider
representation on what form that will take. If we were to create the groups
now, then the same would be thought of us that is thought of the groups in
control of ICANN currently. "The one thing we learn from history is people
do not learn from history." I say let's learn from history. we can see what
has not worked, so let's not seek to duplicate it.>

[Joanna] I agree, but one concern is to ensure representation for minority
interests within such a large constituency and that must be addressed in the
charter.

> 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.

I think so, but if not I would like to now introduce a motion to propose a
new constituency for the IDNH.

[Joanna] IMO It's unfortunate that the poll splits the vote between IDNO and
IDNH because it does not tell us whether the people who voted for IDNO would
vote for IDNH if that was the only option (not everybody knew they could
vote for both), so yes, I would support a motion to get a straight answer to
a straight question along the lines of, "Do you agree that a new
constituency in the DNSO is needed to represent the interests of Individual
Domain Name Holders?", or what is your proposal?
>
> 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?

If there is an opposing viewpoint when discussed, I agree that both
opinions, whether in majority or minority, be presented. However I urge all
Members of this list that are for creating the IDNH to present a united
front on the issue and leave the details to be discussed within the IDNH as
an internal matter, after it has approval. If further clarification is
needed to be included in the proposal, then let's find a compromise we can
agree on as a starting point.

Have a look at my updated Proposal for Membership criteria, which is my best
guess at achieving the compromise you suggest in the timeframe. All comments
welcome.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00967.html
>
>Bottoms Up!
> 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