Re: [wg-review] Constituencies, 1 governance and legality

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 06:48:02PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > Do you really think that allowing any arbitrary person in the world
> > > standing to bring legal action against the corporation would be in the
> > > best interests of the corporation?
> >
> > Obviously not, but the corporation's interests are not the key factor.
> 
> They are the key factor as far as the corporation is concerned.  That is
> the nature of a corporation, as opposed to a government

This one is incorporated as a "non-profit public benefit corporation", so
"public benefit" must over-ride any other interests the corporation has.
 
> > The question is what is best for the net, and indirectly for the users.

Public benefit.

[snip]

> > > I don't know how to put this any more plainly: from a simple common
> > > sense point of view it would be pathologically stupid to create the kind
> > > of membership that you are thinking about.
> >
> > Methinks you are clearly correct. It seems to me that completely open
> > membership organisation, without some provision for veto of technically
> > idiotic suggestions by those who actually have to run the net, cannot
> > work.
> 
> Or a veto from registries for things that would put them out of
> business, or a veto from registrars for the same reason.

No. Granted, they should be heard, but they should not have a veto.

> An organization under control of a totally open membership could simply
> decide, for example, that all domain names should be free.

Why not? They were for years.

Yes, I know it would be irresponsible to decide that without considering
the consequences and ensuring that the net would continue to function under
such a regime.

On the other hand, it is irresponsible to consider registrars' economic
interests as a major factor in setting net policy. They provide a service
and should be paid for it, but their economic interests are opposed to
those of users, and our goal is supposed to be "public benefit".
--
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