[ncdnhc-discuss] Names council candidates

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Michael, Chun, Alejandro, Danny
I will pick a few of your comments to try to match them with the global 
vision of the world at wide foundation making it support several initiatives.

 > Michael
 > My own personal view is that the constituency model has failed, like so
 > many corporatist experiments before it. But if we persist on it, it's
 > unwise to think all people are alike and belong in one group. We should
 > recognize and celebrate the functional diversity of interests of
 > individuals as we do corporations.

I agree with you 100% with one limitation: the constituency model which 
failed is the ICANN model.   The Internet is *our* consensus to 
interconnect *our* machines and this consensus of *ours" is managed by 
*our* governance. The problem we face is that Internet - consensus - 
governance are new social concepts tied together from a new social model. I 
name that model "me/we" as a permanent dialog between individuals and their 
communities. You may observe that this model is everywhere now in our 
society (Internet is both a its successful mirror and one of its best agent).

We want to confront XIXth inherited concepts (corporations, dialog, 
top-town/bottom-up, democracy elections, votes, representation) to today 
our language (organizations, polylog, relations, community correct, 
selection, polls, competence, etc....).

XIIIth century governance is more adequate that Joe Sims mid XXth century 
rigidness. I am surprised that on this universitarian list the 
socio/network analysis and theory did not go yet very far. May be of 
interest to establish a reasearch group as our panel is probably quite 
diversified?


On 07:22 10/09/01, Dany Vandromme said:
>Last point: Do not forget that the ultimate task of the directors, is to
>be responsible of the Company. This is completely different from, for
>instance, representing a constituency in the DNSO!
>So we cannot require from the directors (in terms of accountability) to
>behave like representatives. It a different game.

Absolutely true. Directors are not elected. They are selected. This issue 
is not to know how many represent who or what, but to be sure the origins 
of selected people will be diverse enough to build propositions which might 
look like or be consensuses. This is why consensus by Staff saturation is 
extremely damageable. Every effort carried to set-up a good system is 
spoilt by the Staff authority creep.


 > Chun Eung Hwi
 > When we use the term of at large members, it has the same dimension of the
 > meaning. Here, the term of individual is different from people or human
 > beings in general. In this context, individuals are defined as consumers
 > or customers against providers. It simply means role or status in social
 > relations. Hence, even though somebody could work in American Online,
 > he/she could become an at large member as one individual user, as one
 > internet user, as one consumer, as one customer, but not as an American
 > Online worker. And at large director is the representative of those
 > users, not people who are working in their work place.

@large are no consumers. We start to work on that in France and in a few 
other countries (point.conso/dot.consumer) project. Out ultimate target is 
a Consummation Consultative Council.  Consumers are related to ISPs, 
Registrars, etc... and local laws, not to the ICANN but they may advise the 
ICANN.

@large are only those of us who want to participate into the Internet 
governance. They may also want to organize together and develop a 
constituency. We see that with the emergence of the IALNA, people wants to 
be involved in action by dedicated interest groups. This is why the IALNA 
project is quite parallel to the SME Constituency and Registrant 
Constituency development projects.

 > Alejandro
 > An individual domain name holders constituency has not been able to
 > organize adequately. It is a pity and a part we miss, but the truth is it
 > hasn't been able to get its act together. That's something the NCDNHC has
 > said it's favorable to but also not intervened (I do not think we
 > should.)

As having been quite involved with the IDNO, IDNH and now IDNHC and 
Registrant projects I think the main reason why is because the effort has 
only been carried by activists like Joop and als. The IDNHC or Registrant 
(Individual/Bulk) Constituency real structure should be based on 
specialized and national associations. As well as on the individual 
momentum. This is what we are trying to achieve now to better support Joop 
and his long lasting effort.

The problem is however the relation with the NCDNHC. A constituency of 
Registrant Associations is first a constituency of non-commercial 
organizations. The same for the IALNA as a network of local @large 
associations.

Your comments here would be welcome. I will centainly copy them to the 
bootstraps and the various IDNH/O concerned projects involved.

 > Alejandro
 > Superposing agendas such as "consumer defense" and "solidarity with at
 > large" has lead to great ineffectiveness, and had a great cost of
 > opportunity at not attending to domain-name issues.

Absolutely. This is something we learned for years in France with the 
Minitel and what prevented us (Tymnet) to deploy the Minitel in the USA in 
the early 80s. Large social network are interactive. Users are also content 
providers and providers are very often he "grown-up" users or user 
associations - to take off there is a need of user density France had but 
we could not pay for in the USA.  We have to understand that @large are 
producers by nature: they are acknowledged because they produce a position 
(vote).

Consumers are the same but when delaing with nopn ICANN mantters as ISP 
rates, Telcos lines, legal rules, taxes, restrictions of access, 
registrarts faults, search engine response, family protection, e-commerce 
rules...

They are concerned by their society vs Internet. Not by the Internet society.

 > Alejandro
 > A question that has been repeatedly asked and not answered is: what is the
 > agenda of the NCDNHC and its member organizations? What, Eung Hwi, is it
 > for PeaceNet Korea?

Very good question. May be as a denied Member I can tell what I expect from 
the NCDNHC for the FRAX (non-profit association providing Internet 
education, consulting and assistance to catholic Internet projects, denied 
membership due to the ad hominem argument that my professional practice is 
a Member of the BC).

1. that domain names definition clarifies as the name of the Internet name 
of the registrant domain and therefore is life long, linked to the domain, 
protected and subject to current laws.

2. that domain names registration and management becomes protected. And a 
title be delivered. The effort of an non-profit small structure cannot 
survive a DN loss or challenge. Nor in most of the cases the simple cost 
and the time requested by an UDRP. We set-up Internet projects for a 
purpose, not to make US lawyers work.

3. that experience in the problems met by others organizations may serve as 
a market analysis or a catalysis for those planning to develop and bring 
solutions. Training, education, legal and tax propositions in different 
countries.

5. that a Network Association status be studied and put into legal terms so 
we may incorporate under that status. Problems are the management of an 
unique project by independent national or specialized associations subject 
to their national laws.

6.the analysis of the e-human rights and a consistent proposition which 
might serve to fund human electronic environment consistent legislations, 
as there is the family, the natural environment ...

7. that it may be a constant reminder concerning the impact of the ICANN 
decision about the lingual, digital and financial divides and to foster 
common actions in these areas.

8. That a representative common body may be consulted to tell my possible 
specific concerns and and be a co-decisioneer altogther with large 
buinssess, SME, registrants, ISPs, Registrars, Registries, developpers

My 2 cents.

Jefsey