Re: [ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain Name Holdershipdefinition

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all,

  I think you just about coverd this here.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                      Name: ERIC.vcf
>    ERIC.vcf          Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
>                  Encoding: 7bit
>               Description: Card for Eric Dierker

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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