Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 08:23:06PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 22:17 12/01/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >As I said before, constituencies are a method of preventing tyranny
> > >of the majority -- there are other alternatives, but they have been
> > >considered, and the minorities who stand the most to be affected
> > >prefer constituencies.
> > >
> > >Consider a flat membership model. Suppose there are 10000 members
> > >total. Someone proposes that all the expenses of the DNSO should be
> > >born solely by NSI. Under a flat membership model, 5001 votes carry
> > >the day. Arguably, this isn't fair to NSI.
> > >
> > Kent and all,
> >
> > Arguably any majority decision may be unrfair. But at least it will be
> > known to be a majority decision, which is an argument in itself.
> > Why is it that you think individual members cannot make good and fair
> > decisions for themselves?
>
> Because history teaches that they don't. Majority voting is
> intrinsically unfair to minorities, and no system will work that
> doesn't have some kind of control over the "Tyranny of the
> Majority".
I see that Kent is still singing this same old song. And it goes a long
way in explaining why DNSO.ORG favors gerrymandering in their
Draft7 bylaws. We live in a increasingly democratic world. Democracy's
are governed by the will of the majority. It is true that in the US we have
the Bill of Rights, one of our finest examples of protection of a minority
view. But in no way can the Minority override the will and VOTE of the
Majority.
>
>
> > With consituencies, arguably 50 registries, 150 registrars and 10 TM
> > interests could outvote
> > 1000 DN holders.
>
> But, arguably, the 210 here have *far* more at stake than the 1000:
> We vote on whether a gladiator will live or die. It's entertainment
> to the crowd; life or death to the gladiator; everybody gets one
> vote. As a potential gladiator, would you agree to that decision
> procedure? As a registry, would you put your business in a position
> where the crowd decides how you run your business?
The answer to you last question her is yes. I do it every day practically.
We are a employee owned company as is United Airlines, Hughes
Tool and Die and many others. I serve at the whim of our employees.
> Of course not.
> Nobody who has ever run a business would *ever* agree to such an
> arrangement, and, believe me, the registries are not.
Wrong Kent, see my comment/answer above. It is done everyday!
>
>
> > >I personally think a "Bill of Rights" model that protects NSI in this
> > >case is the best solution. However, it isn't the solution preferred
> > >by the groups that have concerns -- eg registrars and registries.
> > >And it does have the problem of coming up with the appropriate Bill
> > >of Rights.
> > >
> > A BoR protecting NSI. :-)
> > I had not though of a Bill of Rights in those terms. This is why I asked
> > you to post your Montererrey Paper on a BoR, so that we can see what our
> > idea's of a BoR may have in common.
> > Could you please do it, Kent?
>
> It is appended to this message. I used the term "Constitutional
> Protections", as the "Bill of Rights" terminology is, I think,
> somewhat US-centric.
>
> Note that as things currently stand, the BoR style protections will
> probably be built into contracts between ICANN and the registries.
Certainly some rights that are incorporated in the US BoR Model
should be incorporated in accordance with US law within any and all
contracts that the ICANN may let.
>
> All this stuff on the DNSO is purely a sideshow as far as actual
> control over registries is concerned -- the lawyers crafting those
> documents will do the real work.
I am not sure that we would agree with this statement on its face.
The lawyers will do the drafting of what the membership wants
would be a better way of putting it.
>
>
> > Or course a BoR is a difficult problem for those who do not like to concede
> > rights akin to property rights to DN holders.
> > Yet, investment in Web commerce demands that DN holders cannot be left to
> > the whims of registries.
>
> You are lost in hyperspace without a paddle here. The issue of
> property rights for DN holders is completely orthogonal to the issue
> of a BoR, and can be argued from either side.
Intellectual property rights are part of US law and must be acknowledged
and adhered to.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Yes, everyone would try to secure what they could. But it is better to
> > discuss these rights up front than at a stage when the vested interests
> > have already rigged the structure of the DNSO in their favour.
>
> Since I wrote the appended paper, I have give a fair amount of
> thought to the question of how a BoR would be developed. I don't
> have time to develop the argument now, but it would be a *lengthy*
> process, and it is important to keep one's eye on the ball: the goal
> here is to introduce fair competition in the dns registration
> business. A constituency based system isn't ideal, by a long shot.
> But, given the constraints, it isn't bad.
Actually it is a terrible and divisive basis to base a any system
on and it has many problems that have been discussed to nausim already
Kent.
>
>
> > >Consider also that some constituencies, namely the registries and
> > >registrars, really are in a special relationship to ICANN in this --
> > >they will be the ones most heavily impacted by by ICANN policies;
> > >they undoubtedly will be the ones under some form of legal
> > >obligation to ICANN.
> > >
> > So? Does this mean that they need a voting advantage over the DN holders
> > who are equally impacted by ICANN policies but who are even more impacted
> > by registries policies?
>
> Initially, ICANN will have very little control over registry
> policies. It may grow with time, but only if a relationship with
> registries is established to begin with.
Where do you get this idea. The Names council will be making
and determining policy within the ICANN, and it will be a great
debate to be sure.
>
>
> >From the registries perspective your position is that the users
> should have absolute control over their businesses -- that is the
> direct implication of a flat representation model. No business
> person would agree to that, unless at the point of a gun. ICANN
> doesn't have a gun, and neither do you.
>
> - snip paper -
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____________________________________________
