Re: The qualification for admission is a brain

[Duane Little <aadn1@nwi.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 15, 1997 at 10:07:37PM -0700, Duane Little wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > Right now CORE/PAB/POC are embryonic entites in the process of
> > > forming; and in maturity they will be *substantially* more democratic,
> > > and more representative of the "user at large" than Nominet...
> > >
> > So why isn't that the case NOW?  Why should anyone take this on faith
> > alone?
> 
> You don't take it on faith.  You read the documents.  They describe
> the structure of POC, PAB, and CORE; and the mandate they exist under.
> 
I've read it, and I see no mandate but a smoke-and-mirrors illusion of
authority and "consesnsus" which doesn't stand up to examination.  There
is no mandate.  It still smacks of insiders and special interests. 
Example:  where DO you guys come off making domain names practically
synonymous with trademarks?  The reason is obvious:  the special
interests who had inordinate influence as IAHC members and who remain in
the structure it created.

There is absolutely nothing "democratic" about this.

> > As you yourself clearly state below, the beginnings of the MoU cadre are
> > anything but "democratic," but the product of a few people, themselves
> > in no way representative of the majority intent.
> 
> The actual situation is this: After a more than a year of debate, *no*
> majority position was evident.  The IAHC, however, was given the
> charter by IANA to do something; and under that charter they produced
> the best document they could, which, in a very contentious arena,
> included as much consensus as they could find.
> 
Bullshit.  Just outright bull.  You guys have failed to budge on MANY
issues which have a consensus which opposes you and which plague you to
this day.  Again, the domain-names-are-trademarks mindset is a perfect
example.  You have absolutely no business virtually revising a whole
body of law to fit the interests of your Committee members.


> > Even if they claim to
> > hold to democratic ideals, they have demonstrably NOT created a
> > structure expressive of those ideals.
> 
> Yes, they have.  The structure could hardly be more open and still
> have structure.  *Anyone* can participate.
> 
Only _IF_ they sign the document!  "Here.  Approve of everything I'm
doing, lend your weight to my cause, and then we'll let you oppose it!"

No one will _ever_ win my support on that basis.  And as evidenced by
the lack of signers-on, I am not alone in the sentiment.


> > They have demonstrably NOT
> > proceeded in a manner which was open to broad examination or input.
> 
> Utter bullshit.  Huge amounts of input was presented and processed;
> the draft was put out for public review; another huge amount of input
> was presented; the draft was substantially revised; voluminous
> quantities of input continued to come in; and the MoU reflects some
> of that.
> 
Only some of it.  Nowhere near enough.


> > > Despite your continued innuendo, CORE/PAB/POC is *not*
> > > dictatorship/oligarchy/artistocracy/monarchy, nor is there *any*
> > > obvious similarity.
> >
> > Your words ring with the dull thud of truth denied.
> 
> Read the documents.
> 
I have and I will again.  The documents established an authoritative
structure with a self-elected leadership chosen by none of the
participants and whose interests are not expressive of anything like the
majority stakeholders.


> > > You are fixated on the events of the next few
> > > months, while the embryonic organizations materialize, when indeed
> > > there are relatively few players making things happen.  That is
> > > frequently the nature of beginnings.
> >
> > It is NOT the nature of democratic beginnings.
> 
> Actually, it frequently is.  Consider the Constitutional Convention,
> for example.  Appointed representatives met in session, hammered out
> a document.  Public comment was aired through the publication of many
> letters and pamphlets -- eg, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist
> papers.  But the document, the Constitution, was drafted by a
> relatively small group of men working behind closed doors.  Well, I
> don't actually know if they kept the doors closed -- I wasn't there.
> 
You certainly weren't.  Those representatives came from all 13 colonies
and represented the interests of a broad and diverse set of
constituents.  They won the virtually instant approval of their
constituents by the merits of their work.  They granted freedom and
control to the common man.  They gave people a vote whether they
subscribed to their ideals or not.  None of these things is true of the
MoU.  You err grievously in the comparison, Kent.


Duane