ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: MOTION #1: Request for creation of IDNHC

  • To: General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: MOTION #1: Request for creation of IDNHC
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:43:09 -0700
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <sb01b571.063@gwia201.syr.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20010524205059.04e68830@pop.clear.net.nz>
  • Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org

Joop and all,

  I think it is reasonable to say that there are now two factions within
ICANN and especially the DNSO that are of completely diverse
ends of the political spectrum.  One says that there are not enough
constituencies or a constituency that can represent individual
domain name holders, small business domain name holders and ect.,
and another faction that says that the constituency model has
not worked and it is not time to abolish it.

  We [INEGroup] are in neither camp as from the beginning,
we have never supported the present constituency model
as it is in our judgment flawed and purposefully divisive.
However some of the existing constituencies such as the
NCDNHC have been quite useful and also very constructive
in attempting to legitimize ICANN.  However also, the
ICANN BoD seems to be of the collective opinion that
the NCDNHC is a thorn in the side if the BoD's
agenda.  As such with consultation with the NC,
it has become apparent that a desire on the part
of the ICANN BoD and the NC wish to neutralize
the NCDNHC and thwart any new self determined
constituencies form being formed not to mention
BoD recognized.

  And so the saga continues with the DNSO...

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 22:23 23/05/01 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >For the particular group currently in question, its history is far too
> >problematic to be considered as an ICANN constituency.
>
> You will have to be more specific than that, Dave.
> Otherwise people will read your objection as " its history is far too
> democratic to be considered as an ICANN constituency".
>
> >A new, real group needs to form and start lobbying, both for recognition
> >and for particular points of view.  (The latter will legitimize the former.)
>
> What?  Well thank you for the honesty, Dave.
> So when ICANN can agree with the points of view expressed, recognition will
> follow.
> In true bottom -up fashion.
> I can just visualize it: the Individual Domain Name Holders constituency
> led by Mr Crocker and Mr Crispin.
>
> I hope I will be allowed to join as a member.
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>