RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Andrew:

I have realized that you are confused between the At Large and the IC.

The IC and Individual Domain Names Holders.  The At Large membership are any
Internet user holds or not holds a domain, that are interested in the policy
developing in the subjects of:  Domain Names, IP addresses space and Protocols.

El lun, 07 may 2001, McMeikan, Andrew escribió:
> I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
> definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject line.
> 
> in general there are 
> 1)the mass of users 
Heyyy....the mass is huge...many domain names holders that are just individuals
with name and lastname, no an organization.

> 2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall net
It doesn't matter.   Many people have domains with websites with pictures of
their travels and personal things...maybe this not contribute to the internet
development, but they have also a right to be represented in ICANN.

> 3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part of the
> internet
why?  we are talking about a domain name, not about hardware

> 4)some can exercise control of several computers  that are part of the
> internet
and???  is their right!!!

> 5)some control large numbers of computers on the internet
its their right!!!

> 6)some control vast chunks of internet resources both computers and pipes
anyway, they hold as individual domain names...and its their right!!!!

> 7) ICANN wants one root to bind them
This is a concern of everyone, not only of the IC.

> I think that we need to explicitly specify the level to be represented,
> e.g.. IDNO requires 3, at-large implies 2
> Individuals constituency sounds like it is open to 1 (although active
> participation would bump them into 2)
> I would love to see a constituency at level 3  recognised but at any lower
> level it would need mass numbers of members to hold any authority to speak
> on their behalf.

> Please re-word the motion such that IC is defined or referenced to a
> previous definition. I am likely to second once done.

> Does it require:
> * control of at least one DNS style domain name
> * a non-transient computer  publicly connected (is not a number just another
> name?)
I am not agree with this statement because I have to be free to change of
webserver and even from registrar whenever I want.

> * contribution of content (almost everybody, but there are now freeweb sites
> poping up on freenet and there is no real physical computer that you can pin
> down and Freenet Name Service may one day rival DNS {one can dream})
I am not agree.   Many people holds a domain name but doesn't have how to pay a
webhosting...their right is to use free webservices if they want...and now you
want to prevent such people to be represented in an IC?

Best Regards
Vany


> 
> 	cya,	Andrew...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Joop Teernstra [SMTP:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, May 08, 2001 7:50 AM
> > To:	ga@dnso.org
> > Subject:	Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > holders'  constituency (IC)
> > 
> > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
> > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> > >references to this organization.
> > >
> > 
> > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
> > This is why I speak of an IC.
> > 
> > However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
> > considerans.
> > The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.
> > 
> > Pray tell, what makes a bottom-up self organizing process legitimate in
> > your eyes?
> > Only the blessing by the ICANN Board, perhaps? Crises are nothing new in
> > online organizations. I'm just witnessing another one in MINC.
> > 
> > For clarity, let me repeat the motion itself:
> > 
> > I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate
> > acknowledgement 
> > of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in accordance with its
> > Bylaws.
> > 
> > I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution
> > recommending
> > that the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC or the
> > "approval in
> > principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.
> > 
> > Any seconds for this motion?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -joop
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
--
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