Re: [ifwp] Re: membership proposal

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

Milton and all,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Jim and others:
> The approach to membership put forward in this proposal, and ALL of the
> subsequent comments on it, is flat WRONG. It is a bad mistake to divide up
> membership seats on Boards and Councils according to specific categories.

  We tend to agree with this assertion from Milton here.  This is in a sense not a
healthyadvantage and would only cause to provide for political debates between
groups
in the future if the constituencies make ups change over time.

> By doing so, one simply divides up a power pie among existing interests and
> creates a permanently inflexible power hierarchy that creates privileged and
> closed little channels through which power can be pursued.

  This is a pretty accurate assessment wo what could easily transpire in
fairlyshort order.  ANd by doing so, provides for the destabilization of the
internet
by design.  The IANA proposal is very similar in this desire as well and needs
to be grossly amended in order to truly provide for balance and stability.

> The whole point of
> such an approach is to guarantee permanent representation on the board to
> certain organizations who are powerful enough NOW to assert a claim
> Some of these interests are extremely small and unrepresentative.
>
> The whole process consists of trying to compare apples and oranges--one brand
> holder is the equivalent of a user group, which is the equivalent of an address
> registry. What utter nonsense!
>
> You need to create a flat membership space, or at best a simple distinction
> between organizations and individual membership. Period.

  Agreed. And our proposal that we submitted to the IANA and this list in therecent
pas does exactly this.

> If brand holders,
> RIRs, ccTLDs, or others want to be represented, they clearly have enough clout
> among Internet users, etc., to expend resources to win an election. But there
> is absolutely no justification for guaranteeing people a seat on the  basis of
> their membership in some fictitious and badly-conceived set of categories.

  Very true Milton.

>
>
> This is the Treaty of Versailles approach to Internet governance: carve up the
> world into little fiefdoms corresponding to current power wielders. Or perhaps
> the slicing up of Africa into artificial "nations" based on the control of
> colonial powers would be a better analogy. It sucks.

  I was thinking of the former Soviet Union myself as an example.

> --MM
>
> Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> > A proposal for adding a membership to the new corporation replacing
> > IANA can be found at
> >
> >          http://www.euroispa.org/papers/new.corp.membership.html
> >
> > This is most definitely work in progress; both public and private
> > comments would be very much appreciated.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> > VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
> > Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
> > http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
> > tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65
> >
>

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