Dr. Lisse and all,
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Mikki,
>
> In message <v04003a1ab2d947a5e956@[207.87.121.93]>, Mikki Barry writes:
> > At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> > Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism.
>
> Thank you. Benn saying this for years.
So have I and I am as interested in commercial interest as noncommercial.
>
>
> How much is 10 years of effort worth by groups and individuals to
> bring up places like Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Niue? Some
> commercial, some are not.
>
> Which is why am supporting RFC1591 and due process.
>
> > If the non commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a
> > desired venue for communiciation, and if governments, academic
> > institutions, private, and commercial entities hadn't made
> > committments to the medium, there would BE no e-commerce.
>
> Exactly. Where were big business and governments 10 years ago, 5 years
> ago?
Fairly good point...
>
>
> I speak from personal experience in Germany, South Africa and Namibia.
>
> > Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
> > constituencies.
>
> One wonders why. (Or rather not)
>
> > There is no provision for public interest, universal access
> > interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
> > several other important constituencies that are left out of every
> > proposal (although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft,
> > although it is being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact
> > it has been brought up time and time again over the years).
>
> It is shot down *WHENEVER* it is brought up. For cause, not for
> timing, nevermind the trimmings.
>
> > This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
>
> Personally, I am not sure whether this is the answer.
Well we are convinced that a flat model is the only reasonable model
that has a chance of long term success and it puts everyone on a
level playing field.
>
>
> Look at the DNSO.ORG mess. It is flat but captured.
DNSO.ORG is anything but flat.
>
>
> > >This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who
> > >advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort
> > >(and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in
> > >our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council
> > >is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process.
> >
> > The Names Council is still elected through constituencies, which I find to
> > be highly problematic.
> > >
> > >That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise.
> >
> > It's not good enough for me, or for any of the other public interest
> > advocates who do not want to see the Internet carved up among business
> > groups.
>
> Business needs its *FAIR* share of control to protect its
> investment. But so do many groups if you can quantify it or not.
Agreed, and for this amongst other reasons a flat open membership
model is necessary.
>
>
> Stef's model is quite good because it defines more constituencies.
The more constituencies the more divisive and contentious the infighting
amongst those constituencies becomes. An we all know whom wins
those battles. The more they spend, the better odds the have at
having things pretty much their way.
>
>
> el
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
