RE: [ga] Petition for Reconsideration before ICANN

[Srikanth Narra <snarra@talus.net>]

Thank you Kathryn. You are like a breath of fresh air. :)

To clear the air a bit more here is what happened...

1. Everyone in IDNO is tried and a bit worn out getting ready for this
Santiago meet. (Democracy takes a ton of work)

2. During our formation and till date - on our open list and other forums it
was repeated again and again by some that IDNO should not be formed or
exist, let alone be recognised - NCDNHC was THE only place Individuals
should exist in.

3. Then you started the NCDNHC - some of us became a bit apprehensive of
possible attempt to shoe horn individuals into that constituencey and once
more put off recognition of IDNO.

Sincerely apologies on all our behalfs. For brief period we were cynical for
our own good :)

I would be happy to move your request to IDNO but better yet subscribe to
idno list yourself and make suggestions directly. We are a open, transperant
and a democratic forum. You can see us in all our glory and faults first
hand :)

Yep. one with the NCDNHC, the IDNO, and an active GA. Amen !!

1. To subscribe to idno-discuss list.

majordomo@idno.org -- subscribe idno-discuss@idno.org in message line.

2. If anyone wishes to check or judge the validity of what I have said -
except for the first 50 or so messages the entire list of messages to our
discuss list is is archived at www.idno.org. - feel free to check for
yourself.

3. For this meet, Joop has been voted and authorized as the IDNO
spokesperson - pls. co-ordinate between eachother at Santiago. Once we have
a bit less of stress - we can propose some mechanism, vote and work together
as one on issues of common concern.

Sri

-----Original Message-----
From: KathrynKL@aol.com
To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz; ga@dnso.org
Sent: 8/18/99 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Petition for Reconsideration before ICANN 

I remain very concerned about individuals -- and have supported your
efforts 
in Berlin and since.  However, the NCDNHC has occupied 110 percent of my

attention -- as I assume the IDNO organization has occupied yours.

But now is a moment to work together.  The WIPO proposals hit
individuals as 
hard or harder than they hit noncommercial organizations.  Will IDNO go
on 
record and ask ICANN to send the WIPO Ch.3 Cybersquatting/Mandatory 
Arbitration procedures back to DNSO for consideration by a 
fully-representative Names Council -

one with the NCDNHC, the IDNO, and an active GA?

Kathryn Kleiman
ACM-IGC


> 
>  In Berlin you were of the opinion that the Individuals needed their
own
>  constituency in the DNSO.
>  I even quoted your argumentation to try to persuade the Board to
recognize 
> us.