Re: [IDNO:417] Re: GA as IDNO
Karl E. Peters (bridge@darientel.net)
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:04:10 -0400
Dear Kent and List,
Do we need to differentiate between "personal" and "individual" and "solely
owned commercial" domain name holders?
While my site is simply to educate people to what we are doing in my
organization, not to get business, other than find humanitarian needs we can
help fill, it is "for" my business and is not solely for family photos. It is
even less commercial than Kent's (Which looks very nice!), but still clearly a
business domain page. The only difference is that it is not an internet related
business as Kent's is. Based on this, should we both be excluded because we are
business related? I have a friend who uses his domain for trading and selling
collectable toys as a hobby. It, too, exists for the purpose of making money
and is therefore business related. If we exclude such domains, who will be left
that really cares? Given human history, most people will not care until the
problems reside in their own backyard.
After listening to all these arguments, it sounds as though any rules that
allow sizable participation in IDNO would disqualify it as a part of ICANN and
that any formula they would accept in theory could never grow big enough to
demand or reasonably ask for a voice. Most of these warnings and sober thoughts
have come from you, Kent. This is why I earlier privately asked you to put
together a complete plan for your vision of IDNO in a positive and pro-active
way for us to learn from. I now repeat this challenge in public and sincerely
look forward to your obviously thought out positions on how IDNO should be
comprised and what it should stand for, and how.
In light of Joop's frustration in attempting to steer our rather un-wieldy
and leaking boat, a clear plan is needed if IDNO is to continue to float.
Whether he is or will have been the best leader for IDNO or not may soon be
academic, but he did initiate the movement (as far as I can see) and must be
given credit for the initiative we are all trying to take up. I hope that he
will be widely encouraged to keep his foot in the door of our leadership.
Whoever is to lead, however, needs to be a consensus builder and politician more
than an internet expert, as very little to do with the internet has been
discussed since before the beginning of the formal list when we just included
everyone in ever growing circles of e-mail addresses. I would further recommend
that there be an executive council of five people or so with a moderator or
chairperson who would break ties, not a president or CEO. I think they should
be elected by the whole group that exists today with everyone authorized to vote
for three of the five seats. (This will allow some minority voice to have a
chance at leadership even if not liked by a majority.) After election of the
five, they should choose a moderator among themselves as they will have to work
closely and need some control over their process. Since they select a moderator
and not a president, there is less competition for, or regret for loosing, the
keystone job. The electorate or the council can delegate representatives to
carry our message to all the meetings around the world, either from the council
or from the membership-at-large, depending on location and availability of those
qualified to make our case. Perhaps that will help people comment in terms of
what needs to be done instead of what is felt one person is doing wrong. It will
be less personal and more corporate in nature.
I will stop here from my endless thoughts on how we might best govern
ourselves and chime back in when some comments are expressed by others. One
thing is clear though, unless we can work as a group, our platform and best
intentions will never be heard in any positive way anywhere it needs to be
heard. We must first heal ourselves and only then seek to bring cures to the
larger ICANN body.
Very sincerely,
Karl E. Peters
karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com
http://www.bridgecompanies.com
P.S. How about verifying "real people" by having Verisign or other verification
with their e-mails?
> But any non-domain holder can pay $35/year and participate in the IDNO. The
> argument has been made that this means that the IDNO has a broad membership,
> since $35 is not a big barrier. But this also means that the IDNO is
> basically open to anyone. But this means that the requirement for owning a
> domain name is superflous, since it provides no barrier to anyone who is
> interested. Therefore, the criteria might as well be "anyone who is
> interested", and cut out this unnecessary and artificial extra hurdle. ICANN
> will rightly notice that this is an unnecessary and artificial attempt to
> create
> a constituency with essentially the same membership criteria as the General
> Assembly, and say "why?".
>
> > Under your argument, ISPs shouldn't have their own consituency, since
> > they are businesses and there is a business constituency.
>
> No -- that's under *your* argument. You missed my argument
> completely. And yes, this should be discussed at discuss@dnso.org,
> and I will bring it up there. However, it seems to me fairly
> relevant for this list as well.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> --
> This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send
> a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz.
> For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/