RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

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

Bret,
You messed up my filing system by voting no on yes form!
Other comments below.

Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: bret [mailto:bret]On Behalf Of Bret Busby
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:34 PM
To: jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: DPF; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor


Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> Dear members,
> I agree with David's comments below, but surely somebody will counteract
and
> thus we are all blocked.
> The fundamental issue is whether or not individuals need representation in
> DNSO.

I am here. Am I not represented? Do I not have a right to
representation, if I am here?

[Joanna] No Bret, you are here I guess because you are subscribed to either
the @Large mailing list or the GA@dnso mailing list. This is not the same
thing as having your interests as an individual represented in ICANN as part
of a group of Supporting Organizations concerned with Domain Names which
currently EXCLUDE all individuals.

Yes, you can participate in this WG and make your views known here, but
these will only be diluted by numerous other sources that have been gathered
for the purposes of this review of DNSO.  Once its work is finished, (and
there is still some doubt as to whether the original deadline of next Monday
will be extended), this WG will cease to exist and you, as an individual,
will not have any right whatsoever to be consulted in any way about policy
making at ICANN for the foreseeable future. Your only access to ICANN will
be through the GA (which is powerless) and your @Large Director (who is one
person representing potentially millions of people).

I understand that there was dissent amongst the NC representatives from the
other constituencies about whether or not this review should even include GA
and @Large members and there is certainly no guarantees being given that
such outreach will happen again with frequency, if ever. So the answer is
no, at this moment in time, you, as an individual, do not have a right to
any representation, sorry.

That is exactly why some of us here are fighting so passionately to reach
consensus on the IDNH constituency issue and at personal expense I may add.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what its called and am certainly
not inflexible about its constitution. The important thing is not to loose
sight of the fact that the process as it is evolving now is not and has no
intention to be democratic. Unless we force the issue, that is the way it
will be.

In view of all of the above, you may wish to reconsider...:-)
Joanna

<snip>


> QUESTION: "Do you support representation for individuals in DNSO along the
> lines of a new "constituency " ?
>
> YES [         ]
>

No [X]

How many of these factions ("constituencies"), can a party belong to? If
a person owns a domain name, and a trademark, and owns a business, does
that mean that the person can belong to four separate factions (person
faction, domain name owner faction, trademark faction, and business
faction), and, therefore, have four times the voting power, and, four
times the representation, of that a person, whose only qualification, in
these, is that the person is an Internet user?

Are Internet users so lowly, and, inhuman, that they do not deserve
equal representatiion with everyone else?

This sounds horribly like the days, before women's suffrage, when women
were property and not human, and, had no rights, and, similalrly, with
slaves, when slaves were regarded the same.

I understood that this systems was supposed to be about giving people an
equal say, about the control of the Internet, and, in the particular
case of this working group, regarding domain names.

However, it appears to be designed, or, evolving into a system, to give
the wealthy, rights proportional to their wealth and assets, so that,
once again, the common person is regarded as inferior and undeserving of
having an equal say.

And, how discriminatory, confusing, and, unwieldy, and, unworkable, do
people here, want to make this system?

Shall we have a faction for women, to represent women only? Then, shall
we have a faction for only women who own domain names? A faction for
only women trademark owners? A faction for only those of each particular
race? A faction for only those of each particular race, who own domain
names? A faction for only those of each particular race, who own
trademarks? A faction for only those who belong to each of the large,
formal religions? A faction for only those who belong to each of the
large, formal religions, who own domain names? A ftaction for only those
who belong to each of the large formal religions, who oen trademarks? A
faction for only those who own boats? A faction for only those who own
boats and domain names?A faction for only those who own both boats and
trademarks?

So, I say, end the factionalism. Scrap the factions. Give everyone an
equal say. (But, then as someone on the list previously said, "Democracy
is dangerous".)

--

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