Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

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

At 21:46 10/09/00 -0700, Bret Faucett wrote:
[jamie]
>> I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
>> it so difficult?
>[bret]
>I believe that most all the DNSO constituencies and the General Assembly
>itself have accepted the idea that an individual domain name holders
>constituency is needed, and in fact overdue.
>
Yes.

>Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
>do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
>yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.
>
Bret,

Until very recently it hadn't self-organized to our own satisfaction
either. :-)

But then, how long did it take the NCDNHC to come up with a charter *after*
it received "preliminary" recognition?
Also, the NCDNHC had its place already carved out in Singapore. The fight
in Berlin and after was about who would dominate its "self-organization".
(not Sondow)

Now the IDNO has a complete Charter and the ICANN Board is invited to
scrutinize it and see if it can stand muster.

I do believe that the ICANN Board could have recognized the particular
difficulties of organizing  a constituency made up of committed individuals
without help from any existing organization.(pointedly the Salzburg Seminar
did not even want to fund our travel costs to the ICANN meetings).
Non-recognition of even the validity of the *concept* has not exactly
helped to bring it together either.

Mr Crocker' s sarcastic implication that we should have bowed and scraped
more, is... disturbing.
If true, it condemns the interim ICANN Board more than we have ever done.

Mr Crispin's observation that this constituency has particular difficulties
in differentiating between "genuine" DN holders' interests and the
interests of already represented constituencies who can easily infiltrate
it, is valid. To his credit, he has refrained from insisting on his membership
In his words: 

>3) the relationship between an individual constituency and other
constituencies
>[is someone who is a representative of an organization in another
>constituency who owns a domain name excluded from membership in an
i>ndividual constituency -- why or why not];

This has been extensively debated within the IDNO and the results are
reflected in the ratified membership rules.  It should indeed also be
debated in the GA, with the other constituencies participating.
Personally, I feel that supporting the mission statement , including the
petition to become a DNSO constituency, together with owning a personal
domain, is always enough to be allowed in as a member. There are some
restrictions on running for elective office, just as there are in the other
constituencies.
But to admit members  in the bootstrap stage that do not support the
mission statement is suicidal for any grouping that tries to self-organize. 
This has been at the root of the problems with the IDNO formation and the
attempts to "wrest control" by individuals who do not support the mission
statement.


--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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