There is a rather large distinction between an over-arching regulatory
body and one of its constituencies. By definition, a constituency is a
sub-set.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:john@reynolds.chicago.il.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 2:07 PM
> To: William X. Walsh; Kent Crispin
> Cc: IDNO
> Subject: [IDNO:405] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
-- 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/