Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

On this one I have to side with Ken Stubbs. Those who own domain names
and those who do not have different issues, and Joop's distinction
between
the two should be preserved.  I've also lobbied for adequate representation
for "mere users," but I don't think that's really a DNSO function --
that's
what the "DN" means. (To repeat the obvious, until a body that specifically
represents individual users is set up, any user can jump in
on any list at
any time and speak out.)

I've also suggested that the word "constituency" presents some problems in
terms of international understanding, and I floated a balloon that proposed
we simply designate who the people are, e.g., Registrars, Domain Name
Holders, and so on.  However, today I saw the term "center of interest"
being used, and I like it. Subtle efforts to improve communications with the
entirety of the Internet community should be carried out, and this could be
one of them. That's an "outreach" in itself, and shows that whatever else
may be the case, in a proper bottom up mode the GA is trying to do the
best it can; rumor has it that not everyone is doing that. :-)

Leaping yet further into the fray, I suggest that if that new TLD organization
(sorry, guys -- I'm not a TLD owner so I skipped past the actual name) can
send all of us on the ga list an announcement of their formation and an
invitation to join (if qualified), we in the DNSO/ga fold could do the same,
somehow, to people around the world who own domain names. Now that
would be outreach to the nth! (And pity the poor soul who would have to
do it -- searching everyone's WHOIS and all that.)

Bill Lovell

Ken Stubbs wrote:

interesting logic here...

it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this up for
all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have a DN.

what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential members)

i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out" far
enough to be truly "representative"

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

> Dear Joop,
> I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
> There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
> My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
> of the DNS future.
>
> Your motion should read:
> "
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
> for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
> Constiuency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.
> The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> that it place either the creation of such an Individuals Domain Name
> Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for
> a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.
>
> Agree/Disagree
> "
>
> Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
> Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
> confused they will not vote.
>
>
> Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
> maters. Interested parties are:
>
> - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
>     concerned parties):
>
>     - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
>     - organizations with their own name servers: commercial and
>       non commercial
>     - intersections with the DN name space: IP, multilingual,
>       freedom rights,
>
> - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:
>
>     - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
>     - hosted sites: individual DN holders
>     - decision makers: BIND developpers (not yet),
>       Individual Users (they decide of the future of the DNS
>       through the way the want/demand to use it.
>
> 2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
>      need taken into account) nor a market (people we want to
>      best serve) organization. It is purely DNS oriented.
>
>      The groups of concerns present in the DNSO have many
>      other issues to deal with than the DNS. So they may
>      organize in many different structures, ML, associations,
>      etc...
>
>      If we take the case of the individual domain name holders.
>      We have progressively agreed at the WG-Review that
>
>      -  holders was a restrictive word acknowledging that the
>         holder does not actually own the DN.
>
>      -  owner was a legitimate name to use by organizations
>         (IDNO is not the only one) to show that such organizations
>         also consider what the holder actually owns *in addition*:
>         commercial image, pages and software of the site,
>         DN protection/insurrance shemes he may subscribe to,
>         etc...
>
> 3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
>      Individual Users. These people (us all) decide of the DNS
>      far more than any other existing DNSO Member.
>
>      The demonstration is New.net. The question is simple:
>      no one has a real need for the iCANN, but having the
>      iCANN helps us all. This means that the iCANN must
>      be both product (what is possible) and market (us) oriented
>      or that Individual Users will progressively change the
>      Internet into an OpenNet without the iCANN.
>
> 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
>
>

--
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