Jay and all,
Jay, why are you surprised and Jon's switching of positions or
political stances with respect to ICANN. I was well aware of this
some months ago and warned this list of such a potential event.
Like many at the Berkman center, they blow whichever way
the prevailing wind blows....
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 11:37 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
> >Jay,
> >
> >Seems to me the problems are with constituencies generally, since they
> >can't be defined perfectly mutually exclusively, and a simple ban on same
> >entity participation across them would eliminate instances where it really
> >might make sense to have multiple participation--why ought a single
> >entrepreneur have to choose between an IDNO and the commercial
> >constituency?
>
> And what you have today is better?
>
> In one case, you have a system where every
> entity gets to choose one constituency of
> their choice. Today, the vast majority of
> domain name stakeholders are completely
> disenfranchised.
>
> >--while allowing organizations with multiple individuals to
> >assign them separately to each group anyway. If the voting mechanisms for
> >names council rep were the same across constituencies I could see a rule
> >where someone only gets one vote and has to choose in which constituency to
> >place it.
>
> Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
> handled this issue.
>
> We can rehash all of the arguments that
> went into the Paris Draft, but given the
> ICANN Board's proclivity to accept easily
> captured structures, I doubt that any
> good would result.
>
> >So long as the constituencies aren't just working groups (in
> >which case it wouldn't be as controversial to have open participation) but
> >also elect names council members according to their own rules, there are
> >going to be problems.
> >
> >Anyway, we seem to roughly agree here, except that you're more confident in
> >one particular constituency model (one not adopted by the board) than I am
> >in any of them. You hold me to a high standard to ask that I have been
> >reading everything on IFWP and posting public displays of support (or not)
> >on each issue as it arises. I can't meet that standard. I saw the
> >presentation of a consensus document in Singapore (posted at
> ><http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/DNSOdraft.html>),
> > which certainly doesn't highlight the multiple representation issue so
> >learly. Please, if you think I'm getting the history wrong, by all means
> >help me out instead of lobbing cheap shots that say I'm willfully ignoring
> >the truth for some evil end. ...Jonathan
>
> I'm sorry if you feel abused, Jonathan,
> but why have you all of a sudden become
> the voice of a "reasonable" ICANN -- an
> ICANN apologist, if you prefer.
>
> If you were so concerned, shouldn't you
> have been involved when it could have
> made a difference?
>
> Jay.
>
> >At 09:54 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
> >>At 08:55 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
> >> >This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
> >> >arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
> >> >get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
> >> >individuals within non-commercial and they get one set, include them as
> >> >part of an IDNO and they get two. Funny, though: I was there in Singapore
> >> >when it seemed clear that consensus had been built around the
> >> >constituency-based DNSO proposal. At the time it must have seemed like pie
> >> >slices for everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >>This is not funny at all.
> >>
> >>The problem here seems to be that people
> >>involved with ICANN would rather ignore
> >>the history, than acknowledge it.
> >>
> >>The problem of overlapping constituency
> >>membership was explicitly addressed in the
> >>Paris draft, and it was one of the most
> >>contentious items discussed in Singapore.
> >>
> >>The fact that the board ignored our position,
> >>is only made worse by your flippant remarks.
> >>Where were your comments when this was posted
> >>to the public lists, Jonathan?
> >>
> >>Still Upset in Atlanta,
> >>
> >>Jay.
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
