RE: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:06 PM
> 
> At 01:45 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has 
> been stonewalled
> 
> such constructive presumptions and language have, no doubt, 
> contributed greatly to IDNO's success.

More of the usual from D'Crock. Joop is right, when Individual
Constituency was placed in abeyance, in Berlin, Santiago never answered
the question about the delay. Since the IDNO seemed in disarray by the
time of LA and still not together by Yokohama, the question seemed moot.
Rather, ICANN would have it appear that way. However, if they won't
allow the IDNO, why don't they create their own version? 

The longer that ICANN remains silent on this issue, the more certain it
becomes that ICANN doesn't want recognition of individual domain name
owners. The way things are shaping up, they don't want smallish corps
either, as the commercial constituency clearly doesn't represent smaller
members (they need not apply) and even if you are running a registry,
you can't join there unless your name is NSI. Oh yes, if you are not one
of the Big8 ISPs, you might as well forget that one. Oh yes, anyone that
wants to sign the registrar agreement can join the registrars, as long
as CORE will let them (and they pay the entry fee).

Individual domain name holders deserve a fair answer, if ICANN wants to
claim the consensus that they are claiming. It is a false claim unless
individuals are a visible part of the power structure.

Over two years ago, Dec98, I put forward the proposition that the ICANN
saw, in the Paris DNSO draft, the perfect means to divide the ICANN
opposition (lead by the BWG and ORSC, at that time). They removed the
fluidity of that constituency model and created a series of
non-communicating buckets. Tell me that is not what we have today,
please. Pardon me while I chuckle through your explanation.

As regards the IDNO, there is a charter up for ratifacation which I
think is pretty good. At least, it's good enough. No, it isn't perfect,
but I can live with it. This is one step beyond what any other
constituency has completed. Yes, there has been a lot of internal
flame-war, also a step beyond what most constituencies has gone through.
Personally, I think that builds character, on the theory of "that which
does not kill ..." Has it splintered? Not, quite. Has it fractured? Most
certainly. Is it dead? Definitely not. Is there a competing
organization? Look around and you tell me. Has the CA/IDNO learned some
collective lessons? Maybe, only time will tell (personally, I think it
has). Sometimes, building an organization is messy, so is human
birth...that's life...get over it.

--
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