Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>]

[Steve Newcomb:]
> > I'm afraid so, since they all represent a single economic interest.
> > We're trying to develop industry-wide consensus, and that naturally
> > translates to a "one economic interest, one vote" policy.  The voting
> > rules are not designed to help Bertelsmann achieve internal consensus.

> Ooops. What about Lycos, Barnes and Noble, Random House, BMG,
> BOL, (scientific) Springer, Gruner & Jahr, Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag,
> etc. etc.

> They all belong to Bertelsmann (Bertelsmann is the third or fourth
> largest media company in the world right after AOL-Times Warner
> and Disney) and STEP will definitely not represent their interest.

> I think that in the time of global concentration of companies
> to global players the term "organization" has to be defined
> more precisely and it should tend to be open and not restrictive
> -- why? because we want to promote TMs and not prevent people
> from participation. Think about it.

First of all, nothing prevents Bertelsmann from providing 99 Special
Guests and 1 (voting) Participating Member.  The only difference is
voting, and the only purpose of voting is to register industry-wide
consensus.  There is no point in registering the exact nature of
Bertelsmann's internal consensus in the context of TopicMaps.org.
Bertelsmann's vote is sufficient for that purpose.

Conglomerates gain lots of market power by concentrating the ownership
of companies.  You seem to be implying, somehow, that the more market
power a conglomerate has, perhaps as measured by the number of
companies it controls, the more votes it should have in Topicmaps.org.
But that's not consistent with the intent of this group.  The purpose
of this group is to achieve industry-wide consensus by providing a
forum in which such industry-wide consensus can be registered.
Bertelsmann has the ability to create consensus within itself; it
doesn't need an outside group to do that.  Furthermore, nobody outside
Bertelsmann has any interest in helping Bertelsmann achieve consensus
within itself; to use TopicMaps.Org's resources for that purpose would
be a misappropriation of those resources.  Topicmaps.org can only
assume that when Bertelsmann casts its vote, that vote represents
Bertelsmann's interests and beliefs.  If Bertelsmann wishes to make
extraordinarily large contributions to TopicMaps.Org's human or other
resources, either by contributing Special Guests or by contributing
sponsorships, or both, in proportion to its huge size, I would hope
that everyone else in TopicMaps.Org would be absolutely delighted.

If you have a preferred method for distributing voting rights among
industrial interests other than the "one economic interest, one vote"
model, you should propose it.

> > (1) Are you proposing an alteration to the draft charter that would
> >     permit STEP to be regarded as a founding Participating Member?  If
> >     so, what is your proposal, specifically?
> 
> I think you answered to this option in one of your other replies
> proposing a change in the charter regarding the question of
> "Who is a founding Participating Member". Of course, I like it
> and would be happy if the change will be approved!

I'm glad to hear that.

> Sam and Didier replied already that nobody knew before the charter 
> was out how to get a Participating Member and the status/power
> of such a membership. And that was what I wanted to express.

I made a false assumption, and I stand corrected.

> > As far as I can see, STEP's behavior so far has not demonstrated
> > STEP's willingness to contribute to the achievement of consensus.
> 
> Please, remember our SC34 meeting in Granada and the template 
> discussion. You convinced us (Norway) not to come up with
> further concerns about ISO/IEC 13250 at that point in time. 
> We agreed to find another way to introduce our ideas (which 
> are on the agenda for TopicMaps.Org right now). 

For what it's worth, I think your position is correct and entirely
justified.  I regret that my intemperate remarks were misdirected at
STEP.  I guess my real agenda was to clarify that I would like this
activity to operate toughly, fairly, and efficiently, in complete
accordance with its mission, goals, and charter, and that I'm prepared
to defend the mission vigorously, even at the price of having to
challenge others.  (I expect to be challenged, too.)

> So nothing decided for Paris so far. I just want to remind that some
> of us will -- still -- participate in the SC34 meeting on Sunday, 
> 2000/06/11. I would be happy to meet Friday 2000/06/16 afternoon 
> and evening, right after the closing session.

So noted.

> ... ooops I am again 
> acting like I am already a member of this group; sorry for that.

I would think it quite odd if you didn't, Holger.  Your participation
is important.  I hope nobody ever feels the need to apologize for
participating in an activity that is as open as TopicMaps.Org is
supposed to be.  (Although there may sometimes be reasons for us to
apologize to one another for the *way* in which we participate, due to
momentary passions, misunderstandings, etc.  Such apologies are normal
and necessary.  I hope you accept mine.)

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
srn@techno.com  http://www.techno.com  ftp.techno.com

voice: +1 972 517 7954
fax    +1 972 517 4571

Suite 211
7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard 
Plano, Texas 75025 USA