[Freedombox-discuss] Fwd: assigned numbers without ICANN

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 04/30/2011 03:41 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Admins don't exactly have extra "privilege" in name
> allocation.   Successful admins have widely well regarded
> cryptographic signatures, is all.
> 
> The system is also decentralized in that no user is 
> "captive" to any one admin.   Users can always change 
> admins, sign up with multiple admins, invest time and 
> effort to be their own admin, etc.

I think framing it with the (already well-known terms) "Users" and
"Admins" puts people in the mind of the traditional (often antagonistic)
relationship between these groups, as well as all the associated
privileged/unprivileged historical conflict.

I haven't thought through the proposal enough to say i agree or disagree
with it, but i think it would be better served with a term other than
"Admin" for the role with extra public-facing responsibility.

IIUC, the point is that one group takes on an additional responsibility
-- interacting with other members of the group, committing to publish
allocated names in a timely fashion, being responsive to the members of
the other group, etc.

I'm curious about what happens to an "admin" who fails to keep up with
their additional responsibilities -- is there a way that other admins
can censure or reject them?  can their dependent users tell that the
admin has been censured or rejected?

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1030 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110501/d2b78cb9/attachment.pgp>