Re: [DNS] the first step

Re: [DNS] the first step

From: George Michaelson <ggm§>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:26:46 +1000
Vic, I think Robert was being a bit coy. As a member of the IAB, I think he
has a very solid understanding of what consensus means, and when its achieved.
If we have a problem here, its that we're trying to find unanimity which is
a different thing. Especially between quite so diverging interests. I have
no idea how you make people who fundamentally disagree converge on a common
outcome. Do you?

Perhaps you will also consider that several domains do not have any
associated revenue stream, and therefore cannot be levied. Noting that, I think
we all expect this process to be self-funded from the revenue that flows in
DNS. Its been tabled as an issue for over 2 years now.

Also, 'market forces' are anything but standard, and are a really really
bad choice of representing 'the public itself' here. Between conflicting
proposals, we're going to have to make our own decisions. And that is
exactly why you will find that a lot of us want those decisions to be taken
in the WIDER INTEREST, and not for a financial outcome of any one parties
benefit. How about we NOT pretend to let market forces decide for once?

Don't you think your previous posting basically contradicts much of what
you've just said? A 'bonanza' of Olympic related domain ca$hgrabs and 
'best interests of the public' really don't gel for me. Do you expect the
process you outline now to lead to that? I certainly don't!

Personally, I think having wide membership and 'association' with a body
ADNA tried to be should be fine. But an elective process to appoint the board,
who steer DNS SLD policy, thats not so clear. I'm actually more interested in
something appointed by Government, in a clear signal of authoritative vesting.

Elections are really bogus in this context. We don't elect judges, or public
servants. We don't elect the membership of standards bodies. I'm not sure if
anybody elects the board of the ASX, or if the ACCC or the ABA or the SMA are
elected. If there has to be some proof of democratic involvement, sure, lets
have some. But there also has to be a continuity of process, and some memory of
the technology that grounds this process. I'd be very happy for there to be
appointed members, such as the existing delgates. After all, they know what 
they are talking about.

Having said that, I too (like Michael Malone) find the nominet model 
compelling. What works is the size of the membership, and the completely 
not-for-profit model. You will note that some other domains lie outside of
its framework (like and and

I suspect it wouldn't work here. Too many sectional interests. It might be
worth trying. What do others think?

Received on Wed Jun 24 1998 - 08:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC