At 11:42 PM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bret,
>
>Sounds reasonable to me. Since the ICANN board's recognition of the groups
>is provisional, perhaps the issue of individual membership in other
>constituencies can still be pushed. That's certainly a telling clause. I
>do think the whole idea of open-ended overlapping constituencies electing
>names council members is difficult--and Byzantine--but we appear to be
>stuck with them.
>
>As for IDNO and NCDNH--yes, having trouble both organizing and getting
>recognized. The latter seems to have more than one flag-bearer saying he
>or she is the "real" NCDNH, and in Berlin the negotiations were ongoing
>among them. ...JZ
Trouble is, there is to be found a power struggle all of its own; one side has
a boundless, uncensored and uncompromising notion about liberty and
justice, and the other side is autocratic and seems not to have a clue about
any of the above -- you'll have no trouble matching the group with the
description. And that is symptomatic of this whole "internet governance"
issue: it degenerates into politics, power mongering and what several years
ago I described as an emerging turf war. It will all stay that way until the
participants begin to get as much interested in the state of the internet as
they are in their own positions within it.
(It may or may not be recalled, by the way -- and if anyone cares -- that I
have long since stated and believed that the whole "constituency" theory
is a crock -- I say we go Democrats, Republicans, etc. -- that would make
more sense, and let people join whatever party they want. So let's see,
now: that makes me the Independent party, I guess.)
Bill Lovell
