[IDNO:410] Re: [discuss] Re: a democracy can defend itself

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:42:12 +1200

At 16:06 16/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>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.
>
John and all,

First of all, I am very sorry to see you go, especially because you are
basing your departure on wrong conclusions.
I am not IDNO's chair, I'm just the guy who has called IDNO into life and
is trying to nurse it to a proper democratic existence.
It is not yet democratic, because it has no officers yet of any sort to
share the responsibility of keeping it alive. When I am faced with treason,
I have to act on my own. When I don't pay the bill for the website hosting,
the website dies. I am still the owner, in other words, not (unfortunately)
IDNO.
I am justs as impatient to change this situation for the better as you are.
I am herewith calling for nominations for
1.election committee officers
2.membership committee officers
3. a steering committee

I have proposed a charter that has attracted a hundred or so very different
people, but all people who want to see Individual DN owners represented in
ICANN.
You can not compare us with ICANN itself. We are supposed to be a
constituency of special interests. Our members represent those interests
collectively.
I have always maintained that creating a DNSO with special -interest
coinstituencies was a recipe for division and strife.
We witness it now in IDNO.
The constituency structure forces each constituency to be exclusive of the
voices of representatives of "competing" constituencies, who may try to
take over and thus increase the strength of their voice on the names council.
In other words, it is a war game, not a peace game.
I had hopes for an all inclusive DN owners' constituency, where we would be
somehow isolated from the DN wars.
Maybe that was naive.
Anyway, it is not yet IDNO who is making the mistakes, it is me.
Please replace me as soon as possible with properly elected officers.
Please replace my proposed charter as soon as possible with a properly
approved charter.
I will still help to facilitate this transition.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
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/