Re: [wg-review] View from here

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

The entire funding can come directly out of domain registrations and that
model would more than pay the current budget.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
To: "'Eric Dierker'" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>; "'Karl Auerbach'"
<karl@CaveBear.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] View from here


> Karl-
>
> You find the "pay to play" concept difficult- yet, someone has to pay for
> the web and list servers that allow us to conduct these exercises.
>
> Is there some way you can agree to "pay to play" at least to fund the
> infrastructure necessary to maintain the web and list serves, and a
> reasonable amount of scribes for documenting all of this?
>
>
> and- i WILL NOT accept that all of this can be done by volunteers.
>
> peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:55 PM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] View from here
>
>
> As I reread this I thought it might do well as a springboard for further
> "consensus building".  I believe that was ICANN pc speak.
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > Folks - this group is spinning in circles.
> > consent
>
> >
> > Here's what I am drawing from the discussion:
> >
> > 1. My sense is that there is a strong belief that the DNSO is a very
sick
> > puppy and needs some serious care.  Personally I'd like to take a vote
on
> > that question.  However the pro-"consensus" faction obviously won't mind
> > if I simply declare that there is overwhelming consensus on this point.
> > consent on both points
>
> >
> > 2. From where I sit the notion of "pay to play" is quite troubling,
being
> > nothing more than a hidden poll tax.  As Bret pointed out, the business
> > interests (who can easily pay the fees to participate) recoup those
> feesfrom
> > the users of the net who thus end up paying twice.
>
> consent
>
> >
>
> >
> > There is a legitimate question of how one pays for DNSO activities.  (My
> > own personal belief is that the DNSO ought to be funded out of the
domain
> > registration revenues system received by ICANN.  But a pre-condition to
> > that would be the re-establishment of the DNSO as a well-functioning
> > policy organ.) consent
> >
> > 3. As for constituencies - I have not seen a compelling justification to
> > retain pre-defined "constituencies" with pre-allocated voting powers.
> > The closest thing to a justification that I have seen is the argument
that
> > there are many who do not pariticpate and who need someone to act as
their
> > proxy voice.  I don't mind that structure as long as the proxy voice is
> > just that, a voice, and that the actual votes still come from individual
> > people (even corporations need to manifest their actions through the
acts
> > of people.) consent, education may be key here.
> >
> > 4. Regarding the issue of process and "consensus":  I continue to find
> > "consensus" to be an unaccountable procedure that gives the
> > consensus-finder an excessive degree of uncontrolled power.  In bodies
> > with a long institutional memory that might work, but we have seen many
> > examples in ICANN of abusive declarations of "consensus".
>
> consent, I believe any consensus must be validated by majority vote after
> rough consensus.
>
> >
> >
> > With respect to this issue of "consensus" - I do have a particularly
> > distinct viewpoint:  Being a member of the ICANN Board of Directors I
have
> > to evaluate the credibility of the materials I receive.  And given the
> > current lack of formality of DNSO processes, I am not at all comfortable
> > giving credence to the work of the DNSO.  I'd feel much better if there
> > were mildely formalized procedures such as those suggested in:
> > consent, if the minutes conform as a matter of law, some such procedure
> must
> > be employed.
> >     http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml
> >
> > 5. As for the thought that the General Assembly and IDNO and ICANN
> > At-Large are somehow overlapping: Yes, there is overlapping membership,
> > but the roles of each group are distinct.
> >
> > I personally find the GA to be a better way to form the fluid coalition
> > structure that I prefer over the existing pre-ordained "constituency"
> > structure.  Moreover, the GA is essentially powerless today.
> >
> > If contituencies remain then I see no alternative to a constituency that
> > for individuals who own domain names.  (Similarly, I would see a need
for
> > constituencies for community groups, religious organizations, K12
> > educational bodies, post K12 educational bodies, arts/music
organizations,
> > local governments, international organizations, organized labor, small
> > businesses, etc etc.) consent, sorry but this seems like a fairly
workable
> > idea.
> >
> > As for the At-Large - As Elisabeth P. recently pointed out, its scope is
> > rather broader than the domain name system.  My own measure of the
> > At-large is that in encompasses everyone who is affected by the
Internet -
> > and that's pretty much everybody.  As such I don't feel that it is
proper
> > to say that the existance of, or membership in, the GA, IDNO, or
At-Large
> > somehow creates duplicative powers (particularly when the GA and
At-Large
> > are prefectly open to those who are advocates of, or even
representatives
> > of, entities that have other privileged roles, such as being allowed
into
> > one of the DNSO "constituency" clubs.)
> >
> >                 --karl--
> > It seems that the U.S. senate model works fairly well, they all vote on
> > behalf of their various 50 constituencies but they usually accomplish
the
> > goal of representing the entire nation. Keeping in mind there is a great
> > deal of consensus gathering prior to a vote.
> > --
> > 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