RE: [wg-review] SME constituency?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I disagree. 

It is clear that we can neither agree on specific constituencies or that
anyone has a clue on the process needed to create a constituency. Simply
creating them by executive fiat, as the current constituencies are, is
generally unacceptable. This includes all the wrangeling over Independent
Domain Holders.

A better, more inclusive approach is to let the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No
kowtowing to special interests here (TM or otherwise). Let blocks of voters
form PACs, but each individual votes independently. For the DNSO, a voting
member is one that has color of title to, at least one, domain name.
Additional domain names do not garner any extra voting rights, however.
Legally recognized corporate entities can vote along with anyone else.

This isn't a new suggestion. I has been bandied about for a few years. The
FUD that has been spread against this is the "capture-effect" bugaboo. I
submit that this isn't ameliorated by the current situation, where the TM
and IP folks have, in effect, captured the current system, in spite of all
those constituencies.

Also, Domingo is right. These discussion groups tend to get mighty confusing
and unwieldy. It doesn't scale. I have said it before, NewsGroups are a
technology that are designed to deal with the volume of UseNet. No, we don't
have to put it on UseNet. In fact, my recommendation is that we don't do
that. ICANN/DNSO needs to form their own network for this. Feeds and servers
can be acquired, the DNSO simply has to "want" to do this. There are plenty
of us that can find the resources. It isn't as if we weren't tech-heavy.

As far as fiscal health is concerned, ICANN couldn't have botched that job
worse, if they had tried. You don't simply walk up to a business, hand them
an invoice, and expect them to pay (exactly what ICANN did to the ccTLDs).
You have to convince them that the are getting some benefit from your
presence. Where is the value-add? The DNSO is in exactly the same boat.
Since the only ones seeing any benefit, thus far, are the TM&IP interests,
then they should be sent the bill. I'm certainly NOT a WIPO fan, but if they
are getting the benefit, where's their money?

-- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:38 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] SME constituency?
> 
> 
> Before we all get carried away in support of a constituency for small
> business (SMEs) I think I should point out that the existing Business
> Constituency (BC) is currently representing SMEs.
> 
> The BC represents thousands of SMEs indirectly via its association
> membership. The BC represents them directly with its explicit 
> category for
> SME membership - which charges a significantly reduced fee.
> 
> SME representation in the DNSO faces the same dilemma as SME 
> representation
> in public policy. SME's are typically too small to afford the 
> time/money
> commitment to participate in non-core activities. Representation via
> industry associations is the typical solution.
> Philip.
> 
> 
> --
> 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