-----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 ---------