Re: [ga] Joop's motions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I am sorry Sotiris, but IC is too short as it conflicts with
Individual User Constituency and Indvidual User Center of
Interests (IUCI). The WG-Review has stabilized as IDNH
and IDNHC after a lot of disputes. This was reflected in the
Chair approbation of the subject for discussion.

Anyway there is an obvious mnemonic conflict between
the two requests and an overwhelming silent majority in
favor of the individual users :-).

I recall you that Individual Users as to be prefered to
End User as the Internet is an independent station
oriented system (there is no "end") and "EU" would
be confusing with Europe?

I add that the Individual User is absolutely not represented
in the DNSO - while is some ways IDNHs and SMEs are -
while IUs are going to be the deciding segment: should
IUs opt for a MultiRoot solutions, or when will hey do will
have a dramatical impact on the DNSO mission and
structure.

I am afraid that all this leads us to a new confusion against
the IDNHs in pretending that IDNHs are to be confused
with Individual Users.

I do not buy the possible confusion between IDNH and
IDNO. It would be like saying that USA and USSR where
so confusingly near that the "USA" had to be called
"Europe".

IMHO we have another problem: there is an abvious
possible confusion between DNSO/IC and DNSO/BC.

Jefsey


On 16:51 14/05/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >  At 13:36 13/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> >> But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I
> >> would strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be
> >> given the term "Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too
> >> many "fumble fingers" in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO
> >> will get confused, and people may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one
> >> when they mean the other.
> >
> > That is right and this is the reason why I have proposed calling it
> > the IC.
>
>All,
>
>My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
>disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
>offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
>proposal paper.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC
> >> one goes
> >> through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves
> >> as
> >> candidates.
> >
> >
> > That would indeed be a false premise. However, I do not advocate it.
> > If the IDNO has to die in order for an IC (with a universally approved
> > structure---tiny problem: how are you going to get that) to take it's
> > place, that is fine with me.
> >
> >
> >  --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--the Cyberspace Association andthe
> > constituency for Individual Domain Name OwnersElected
> > representative.http://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

--
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