Re: [ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain NameHoldershipdefinition

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

Then I guess it should go something like this:
1.    WG recommends a IDNHc.
2.    the recommendation goes to the task force.
3.    The task force may include the recommendation to the DNSO
4.    Mr. Teemstra and the formed group petition the BoD.
5.    because of the considered recommendation from this group which was well
reasoned and based on a reasonable consensus and was forwarded to the BoD by the
DNSO, the BoD has no grounds upon which to reject the new constituency.
6.    The BoD rejects it anyway.
7.    There is even more disenfranchisement, ccTLds move to alternative root
servers and lawsuits are filed against ICANN at an alarming rate.
8.    Meanwhile registrars take the cue from Verio and register.com realizing
that ICANN has even less validity and power than before, and run roughshod over
the consumers.

Well gosh darn it I need the internet, so we just better come up with a way to
make this work.

Sincerely,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Eric,
> On 21:53 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
> >All right, there appears to be very valid reasons why we should not create
> >a new
> >constituency.  It would appear that rather than a constituency, IDNH
> >should just
> >naturally occur within the GA.
>
> Actually the important thing is to get rid of the constituency system which
> is rather an US centric notion. Since only in American English a
> constituency may possibly reach a consensus. In other parts of the world
> (96%) a constituency is a component for a vote, i.e. the antithesis of a
> consensus. This is a constitutionalist view. A practical traslation
> rationale is that the system has failed as most agree.
>
> >However if a constituency is required simply for
> >the purpose of shifting the power base from controlling business interests
> >to where
> >it more correctly belongs, with the users, then perhaps it is a necessary
> >step.
>
> It is a mandatory step. But not in an SO consulting organization. It has to
> be done in the @large field. An there the IDNO organization created a long
> ago by Joop Teemstra as a real lead. Buth there are others. For example
> Ralph Nader initiative quoted here is one them. This is why I copy this
> mail to GA, for Jamie Love and others may read it, so we can renew contact
> on this topic of the defence of the idnower as a consumer. As we got
> contact with other consumer organization in Europe.
>
> Jefsey
>
> PS. Frankly the most complicated thing seems to make understand that by ill
> reasoning DNSO has hosted until now most of the @large concerns under the
> name of constituencies and that that they are going to go back where they
> belong, i.e. to the @large mouvement. Leaving the DNSO resume its bylaws
> defined duties, procedures and methods as an SO. Probably because it look
> stern to many. Well itis, but it is basic job which has been over delayed
> with very bad consequences for all of us.
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote on WG-Review:
>
>  > Creating a DNSO/IDNO constituency is so difficult a task and opposed by
> so many
>  > interests Kent Crispin clearly explained here yesterday that Joop Teemstra
>  > dedicated most of his life to it, creating it outside of the DNSO. But it
>  > will never happen, however half the people on this WG-Review have been a
>  > Member of Joop's IDNO and three candidates out of three belong to it
> (the forth is
>  > not a Member most probably because he also did not know it by then, but
> learns
>  > fast!).
>  >
>  > There will never be a DNSO/IDNO because
>  >
>  > - the DNSO is to resume its SO role and the objective of the IDNO are much
>  > broader as a management tool. But beware It will be a key component of the
>  > @large system if its Members understand it properly (if the IDNO plays its
>  > part correctly it could very well eventually be the real owner of the
>  > ICANN, from the French Minitel experience we had both in France and in
>  > the US).
>  >
>  > - the DNSO constituency system is obsolete and will disapear as soon as a
>  > certain number of constituencies understand what @large is about and
>  > other may take their role if they do not reorganise quick.
>  >
>  > - the IDNH is only a center of interests, a subject for people to work
> together
>  > on individual domain name holding related general problems. Its role is to
>  > uncover the underlaying consensa on the matter and to document them
>  > to the benefit of the community and of the BoD; and then to derive, from
>  > the expertise of all those who want to participate, advises concerning the
>  > way to apply changes, new possibilities, legal options, etc.. at it is
> the role
>  > of an SO. Please consult the bylaws. All is in there. IDNH is for lawyers,
>  > engineers, representatives from IDNO like organization with a strong
>  > training in Internet issues. It has no Members, but Participants keeping
>  > contibuting through published and maintained position statements until
>  > a consensus has been acknowledged by everyone. It is some place to
>  > work seriously, competently among representive by qualification.
>  >
>  > This is the same for the other DNSO/GA/CI resulting form this WG-Review
>  > about DN, TLD, Consensus digging tools and methods.
>
>  > On 02:25 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
>  > > From what I have seen to date the elected members of the board are doing
>  > > their
>  > >job. I feel very confident that once the IDNH is established that board
>  > >members
>  > >elected as a result of the constituency being in place will likewise do
>  > >their job.
>  > >I thought that by voting for the constituency on the polling site we were
>  > >basically insuring that it will become a reality.
>  >
>  > I hope this keep you understanding?
>  >
>  > Believe me: there is no stricter opponent to Kent Crispin than me, but
>  > most of what he writes is right. His premises are wrong (IMHO). He fights
>  > for an "USG-down" standalone "up avoiding to be trapped by a bottom"
>  > ICANN. I fight for an "half-bottom up" international cooperation for the
>  > administration of name and numbers. The visions are opposed: the reality
>  > evaluation is much equivalent. I say that so you can check me by my
>  > opposition.
>  >
>  > Jefsey
>
> --
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard