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

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

Brett:  This is called communication.  As confusing as this process is,
there is a value in writing our thoughts and opinions.  We have to think
about what we write and attempt to carefully use words that can be
understood by as many participants as possible.  It also requires that we
examine their words carefully in order to try and comprehend.

Please accept this next contribution on my part as adding to your ability
to participate even more fully.

Joanna posted two messages and clearly stated on them to vote yes on one if
you were in favor of the question or to use the other form and vote no on
it if you were not in favor of the question.

I don't think she is 'scolding you' although it comes across in print that
way.  I think she is saying that you appear to be in favor of reorganizing
the Domain Name Support Organization to give a voice to everyone.  She is
trying to fully explain, in her opinion, what this working group is all
about.  Further she is indicating that by voting no your vote would appear
to agree with the status quo.  (Perhaps we could call it a case of the
'miscarried chad' or an Internet example of the 'butterfly ballot'? :)

Anyway participate all you want.  I think you'll feel better about your
contributions if you realize that the majority of this working group is
really looking for a workable system that will increase participation and
representation within the community of Internet users and potential
Internet users.  We just don't all agree on how that can be done with
fairness and equity.
Now before you blast me with a "one vote, one person" decree.  Step back
and listen to me for a moment.  I want to vote and participate, but I'll
acknowledge that there are worthier leaders.  I'll acknowledge that
investment is an important part of participation.  And I do fear the
"masses" of uninformed voters who can be swayed by the slickest marketing
campaign and the best spin.  So how do I balance my desire to have my voice
heard with my desire to protect this wonderful new communication tool from
being controlled and manipulated by heads that are brighter than mine?
Perhaps that becomes the question for you and I, the bottom "users" to
ponder in this debate.
For what it's worth a lot of the e-mails I have read have created confusion
and demanded more thought than I could muster to give adequate input that
would be helpful.  Everyone agrees that this has been a confusing method of
discussion and a complicated way to exchange ideas.
Thanks for listening, now blast away.

Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Bret Busby
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:58 PM
To: jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

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

--
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