Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Enir and all,

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> Hello Bob Allisat <bob@wtv.net> --
>
> Methinks you did not read my message carefuly enough to see that there
> was no such thing proposed as "One TLD or SLD, One Vote" in my
> proposal.  So, I am only writing now to clarify what I wrote as
> compared to what you imply that I wrote.

  Possibly Bob did, but I did not.  So I will comment here once again to
you nicely condensed version.

>
>
> To restate my proposal (perhaps) more simply than I originally did:
>
> 1.  No direct voting for the members of the Names of the NamesCouncil.

  This is disinfranchizing the User base and the stakeholders.  Much
like,PAB/POC/CORE.  Almost a clone.

Counter proposal:

 Andy and all constituent groups, stakeholders, and users individually or
collectively
have a direct vote to the members of the Names of the NamesCouncil. if that is
what
you wish to call it.  And in addition, they have an approval vote before
enactment
on any and all standards and/or proposals that might be initiated or put by this
said NamesCouncil before enactment.

>
>
> 2.  All TLD and SLD and lower DNS Zone admins are indirectly
>     represented through their own separate trade or other kind of
>     associations, as are the DNS Name Service Administrators, with 25%
>     of the NamesCouncil voting members chosen by each of the four
>     associated groups mentioned here.

   Again, I will be a bit more plural.

Counter Proposal for your #2.

  Any procedures that directly or indirectly effect any User or Stakeholder
group or individual DN holder, registrant, registrar, or registrant, shall have
an approval vote on any and all proposals either put by, or suggested to the
NamesCouncil.

Note:

  All constituent groups should have either individual votes by their own
selection
or individual votes as stakeholders or users.  The proposals must be posted
on a web site, maintained by the NamesCouncil paid for by dues collected.  A
30 day time frame should be allowed so that those groups may consider the
proposal and vote either as a group or individually.  Many more than 4
constituent groups may be represented.

>
>
> 3.  All other voices are to be heard through Fari Hearing Panels which
>     must operate in an open public mode, as must the NamesCouncil.

  This provision is not needed in total.  The only part that should remain
is the public hearing and announcement of the voting results.

>
>
> I believe that this arrangement negates all of your fears.

  We have NO fears as you seem to believe that Bob does.  Rather we feel
that your proposal in concentrating control in too few of hands with little
REAL oversight.

>
>
> Best...\Stef
>
> --------
> >From your message Tue, 26 May 1998 13:42:15 -0400 (EDT):
> }
> }
> }The use of the "Producers' Cooperative" is legitimate only when dealing
> }with specific issues and limited areas of responsibility. It is perfectly
> }useful in, for example, the limited realm of name services provider
> }discussions, the setting of technical standards or deliberations on
> }smaller issues. The final decision and power of veto must rest with
> }the hundred million citizens increasingly of all nations who actually
> }drive this medium.
> }
> }There is no merit in utilizing the possession of Secondary or Top
> }Level Domain name holders as anything even vaguely resembing a
> }consituent or representative assembly of the Internet at large. "One SLD,
> }one vote" (or "One TLD, one vote") is as unfair a system as "One house
> }one vote". What happens is that those with the most houses/SLDs/TLDs
> }simply dominate the process and all fairness flies out the window.
> }
> }Similarly, alotting control to Industrial/commercial segments breaks down
> }into the same basic injustice on a general level. The same outcome results:
> }"One mega-site/corporation one vote" and the overwheleming majority composed
> }of small stakeholders are relegated to so much background "noise". In my
> }experience the vast majority of Internet commerce is in the form of small
> }business and individual sites. So indeed the netizen is truely the majority
> }stakeholder. And we are effectively frozen out of the process in favour of
> }the alleged big players in any power block structure governance proposals.
> }
> }Further more, it also is unfair to place the plethora of small interests
> }which make up the majority of Internet activity into one subset facing
> }large Internet business or commercial blocks. If, for example, two seats
> }are given to ISP's, two to corporate players, two to technical experts
> }and two to Domain Name registries leaving two places for miscellaneous
> }netizens one has effectively rendered the real-time majority stakeholder
> }netizen into a powerless position. We cannot and, I hope, will not
> }relegate the men and women of the Internet to a bit player "extra"
> }status.
> }
> }"We the people" are the major driving net.force. It is our ISP bills,
> }our small businesses, our credit card transactions, our visits racking
> }up their hit count, our two hundred million pissant Web sites that
> }drives this whole beast that makes their their profits. Let us not
> }forget that.
> }
> } Bob Allisat
> } Director, World TeleVirtual Network
> } bob@wtv.net - (416) 534-1999 - http://www.wtv.net
> } Free Community Network - .FCN free TLD Registry - http://fcn.net
> }
> }

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com