[ga] Arguments for an Individuals Constituency

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 16:25 5/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>Eric Dierker writes:  "The real point is that if the NC and BoD are intent
>on allowing a IDNH all they have to do is grant the foreplaced petition.
>Why hasn't Karl done such a thing in a formal motion?"
>


>Perhaps the Board is not intent on allowing an IDNH.  Perhaps the arguments
>for an IDNH have not yet completely swayed the Board.  The Board is expected
>to work within the framework of the ByLaws which state, "The Board may
>create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
>motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
>Corporation."  Perhaps they are not yet convinced that this would serve the
>purposes of the Corporation.  Where are your definitive arguments mustered?
>Have any of these arguments been offered up to the Board in some documentary
>form for evaluation?
>

Yes, the arguments have been presented many times, although I do not know
what "documentary form" the Board would require and why such documentary
form would not be required of other constituencies to justify themselves.

Our Chair may not have been around long enough, but I have listed  the
arguments in Berlin and Santiago for the GA and for the Board. 
The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)  has enumerated arguments in
Berlin . We have had them on the IDNO website for the last two years.
www.idno.org/arguments.htm.  
They are simple and have not been refuted:

Individuals have a special stake in the DNS, different from the stake that
businesses and non-commercial organizations have.
Their interests cover both fields and are personal and therefore sensitive.

Large numbers of Domain registrations can be considered registrations by
Individuals.

Individuals are more emotionally involved with their Virtual identity and
presence and they equate the loss of their Domain with a "personal death"
of their links to other individuals.
(ever been cut off email because of a DNS configuration glitch?)

They have witnessed the birth of globally applicable rule making (the UDRP)
that gives businesses  the power to take their domains away fast, and they
have found that their own input in this process, volunteered in good faith,
has been largely ignored because they lacked voting power.

They realize that they need to be a recognized part of the process, with a
vote that will be counted fairly, and a weight that represents their
numbers, before further rulemaking that governs "Net -death" is introduced.

I am not just speaking for myself here, but as a representative of those
IDNOers who have elected me to speak for them.





--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html