Kent:
Kent Crispin wrote:
> This is not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect". It is a matter of
> "consensus". The fact is that the participants of the Barcelona
> meeting came up with a list of constituencies that they thought
> clearly needed representation; that was a consensus item; there were
> no trademark representatives at that meeting pushing them into it;
> the Monterrey meeting reinforced that consensus.
>
The "consensus" that emerges from the meetings of the Barcelona meeting, run by Core
members, its web site operated by ITU, means nothing to me. We knew back in 1995 that
your group was trying to set up a deal with ITU and the trademark interests to take
over the DNS. You had a consensus among yourselves back then. I rejected it, along
with a lot of other people, and it didn't happen.
> >Why not create 3 seats for a special category of members called "domain name
> >holders who have been abused by overly aggressive trademark owners"?
>
> The document clearly indicates that the constituencies indicated are
> an initial set, and that procedures will be developed for creating
> new constituencies, changing the charters of existing constituencies,
> deleting constituencies that are not relevant, and (implicitly)
> adjusting the representation. [Political reality is, of course, that
> the number will simply grow over time.]
> So, it would be perfectly reasonable to creat the constituency you
> describe. Mike Heltzer, the person that I understand did most of the
> drafting of the INTA document, has suggested to me in private email
> that there should be a "Free speech and Consumer Interests"
> constituency, which I think would be a good idea.
Unbelievably disingenuous. If you take the idea seriously, add that constituency to
your draft NOW. All it takes is a few strokes of the pen.
> [It might be better to change the name from "constituencies" to
> "special interest groups" -- "SIG" would be easier to type, and it
> is suggestive of the SIGS that exist in professional organizations
> -- eg "SIGGRAPH", the ACM Special Interest Group for Graphics.]
"Special interest groups," yes. SIGS, no. The "SIG" moniker, with its images of small
groupings of the like-minded within voluntary associations, is a bit too innocuous.
The connotation of the term "special interest group" as it is used in politics and
political science is much more appropriate: essentially economic interests banding
together to seize the power of the state to dispense economic rents.
> The majority of entities involved *do want* membership classes
> structured to reflect constituencies.
But is this the best way to do it, Kent? Or is it just that they all think that they
will be able to gain some form of exploitive economic power over the name space?
> I don't have a particular ax to grind here -- if there is a clear
> and substantial move away from a constituency basis, then it will
> happen. I don't see such a move, however.
As long as you're in charge, you don't care whether the system fosters justice or
special interest turf battles, eh?
> Personally, I don't think it matters too much from a practical point
> of view, as long as the number of special interests is fairly large,
> and no one of them has obvious control.
There is no reason to solidify special interests in the form of membership classes.
Special interests can operate and be heard without them.
At what point in this exchange are you going to give us a *reason* for membership
classes other than long, drawn-out, fancy ways of saying:
"...because that's what we've already decided to do?"
--MM
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
