Kent Crispin wrote:
> Hey Jamie, in fact my employer is the University of California -- a
> non-commercial organization.
I guess I was thrown by the web page for your business. You know,
Songbird Internet Services.
> Perhaps what you mean is that if I was employed as a professional
> full-time political activist, I would understand?
Well, in particular, if working as for an NGO that isn't a corporate
front group.
> Well, quite possibly. All dedicated professionals end up with a world
> view colored by their profession. Perhaps you would agree that your
> career as a full-time professional political activist has had some
> effect on your view of the world?
I've been doing this type of work for a long time. It's not a
well paid profession, but it is what I choose to do. People who do work
in these type of jobs have values that are often different from the
values represent in the other NC constitutency groups. I think this is
fair.
> However, that view may not be appropriate for the NCC. There are lots
> and lots of non-commercial organizations that don't have activism as
> their primary focus, and there is in fact no reason to assume that
> "non-commercial" is the same as "anti-commercial".
Of yes, I'm sure the local yacht and golf clubs have much different
values. I used to be employeed at Princeton and Rutgers, and I know a
little about the academic community. I'm sure that there are lots of
different things going on in non-commerical organizations. But I'd draw
the line someone, and I think it is unfortunate that the NCDNHC is just
another place where a registar/ccTLD registry/ISP/business interest will
have an additional vote. It's not as if ICANN has much of a place for
consumer interests as it is. It is as if even 1/7th of the vote is too
much for consumer type interests.
> It appears that you would like a litmus test that could be applied that
> would eliminate members that didn't agree with you, but that really
> can't be done.
That's bullshit. I don't and I haven't. (Think of the groups I
have endorsed for membership in this group, such as Dave Crocker's
group). But why call it the NCC if its just a place that anyone can
claim to be "equal" to everyone else. Why not just say its the only
wide open group for the NC, rather than pretend it represents a real
interest.
> I don't see any reason to be particularly concerned about who they chose
> for their rep. More important, there isn't any mechanism available to
> discriminate. Imagine a Bill Gates Charitable Trust -- if it qualified
> as a NCC member (and it probably would), we could imagine that it
> would be rather favorable to commercial interests. There really isn't
> anything that can be done about that -- "open processes" is a sword
> that cuts both ways.
Look, if Microsoft wants to get into this group, they can do it the
same way that everyone else does. It's easy. But that doesn't mean it
is appropriate or above criticsm. I can say what I think, and that's
what I'm doing.
Jamie
=======================================================
James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176
=======================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:39 PDT