Re: [IDNO:403] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
John B. Reynolds (john@reynolds.chicago.il.us)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:06:36 -0500
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:01:58 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 09:35:21AM -0400, Karl E. Peters wrote:
> >> Sirs,
> >> Perhaps it would be worthwhile to note the different levels of
> >> activity within a democratic society, using the US system, not as an
> >> ideal, but as a model of realistic democracy in today's world. While
> >> opposition to ideas is more prevalent than the proponents of the
> >> ideas themselves on almost every issue, whatever the source of the
> >> idea, it is generally assumed that the Republican leadership will not
> >> sit in on the Democratic convention and try to disrupt it by
> >> interjecting their own wishes for the Democratic party.
> >
> >The analogy is not apt. The criteria for participation in a
> >Republican Convention is membership in the Republican party; the
> >criteria for participation in the IDNO is (or should be) ownership of
> >an individual domain. I am not, therefore, a member of an "opposing
> >party", and, if you review my postings, they have *not* been
> >disruptive, abusive, or insulting. Furthermore, if this list has any
> >charter at all, it is to discuss the political structure of the IDNO,
> >and therefore, my posts are exactly on topic.
>
> Actually we are still fleshing out the criteria for the participation
> in the IDNO, Kent. And one of the criteria very well may be that you
> support the concept and goals of an individual domain name holders
> constituency within the DNSO.
>
> You have opposed such an effort. It makes little sense to have
> someone who doesn't support that individuals should have a
> constituency in a constituency that is created for that purpose.
>
> So having a domain is one condition, but supporting that those domain
> name holders should be represented by the constituency very well may
> be another.
>
> In that event, I don't think you would qualify, and this makes the
> above analogy VERY apt.
>
Let's follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If it would
be appropriate to limit membership in the individual domain holders'
constituency to those who favor its existence, wouldn't it also be
appropriate for ICANN to restrict its membership and that of its subsidiary
groups to those who agree to support ICANN? If ICANN were to adopt such a
policy, it would be (quite properly, IMO) denounced as undemocratic and
exclusionary, as was the gTLD-MoU. The same rules apply to the IDNO - if
you wish to be recognized as the representative of individual domain
holders, you must admit all of them without requiring a loyalty oath.