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

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

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> 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
> ......................................

I am sorry.

I now have no idea as to how this all works. It is simply too confusing.

A federal court judge here, once used a term, to describe a major
government department's workings; "kafkaesque obscurantism".

I think that best describes all of this.

-- 

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