[ifwp] Re: Membership organization

-----Original Message-----
From: mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org>
Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:11 AM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: Membership organization


>ISOC's leadership has made some terrible and costly mistakes in the past
two
>years. My idea was by no means intended to be a vote of support for them or
>even for ISOC as it now exists.
>
>The point was that it is the only organization with an international
>membership apparatus in place. If we're serious about a membership
>organization that is *individually* based, the question of how membership
is
>established, verified, votes tallied, etc. becomes extremely important. I
>think some of us are not thinking about the practical implications of
>implementing that.
>


I disagree. Some of "us" have been thinking
about this for a long time. In my particular
case, the IPv8 Plan is the structure that I am
assuming will handle most of the needs in this
area. The IPv8 Plan is based on individuals
that join small trusteeships which I call 2+2+4
because 2 of the people rise to the leadership
roles, they each have a back-up and then there
are 4 people that help to fill out the group for
continuity and eventual rise to leadership roles.

In the IPv8 Plan, 2,048 TLDs each have a
2+2+4 trusteeship. That is 16,000+ people.
Those 16,000 people are organized into 8
regions with 256 TLDs in each region. The
regions are a mix of geocentric TLDs and
generic TLDs. People can be a trustee of a
TLD and not have anything to do with the
registry or registrar operations. The trustees
determine what companies get to do those
jobs. The trustees represent the people.
They are like a mini-IANA for each of the
TLDs.

With 8 regions, there can be some simple
process for having 2 delegates from each
region to be selected to work periodically
in a 16 person global round table to deal
with any global issues that should be rare.
The idea is to encourage problems to be
solved inside each region and local to what
is affectionately called a "neighbor net". That
is simply the sum of one trusteeship and
the two trusteeships on either side of the
TLD. Various schemes can be worked out.
Some might prefer that the 2+2 part of the
center trusteeship be joined by the 2 leaders
from the neighboring trusteeships when
problems can not be solved inside of a
TLD trusteeship.

As an example, recently people were
debating some issues with the .PL TLD
for Poland. In the IPv8 Plan the trusteeship
for the .PL TLD would try to resolve the
problem. If they can not, then they could
ask for help from the .SALT and .ROME
TLD trustees. If necessary, maybe the
.GR and .CANVAS trustees would be
asked to help.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

3:174     GR   (GREECE)
3:175     SALT
3:176     PL   (POLAND) <---------- Dispute
3:177     ROME
3:178     CANVAS

All the IPv8 Plan takes is an agreement that
TLDs are a public resource that should have
some small number of people acting as
trustees. Then those trustees can be grouped
in regions and encouraged to organize
themselves. People could become trustees
of as many TLDs that will allow them to join.

By building upon individual people and using
the TLDs as focal points for trusteeships then
we can have a structure that allows many people
to participate, is immune from capture and
encourages people to think global but act local.


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com








-------- Logged at  Thu Sep 3 11:03:33 MET DST 1998  ---------