RE: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Peter,
I would agree with you if :

1. the IDNH issue had been not consistently delayed (the WG has been partly 
set up to address the problem that this consistuency has not been organied) 
and therefore I take it as an identified part of the constituency general 
problem to solve.
2. the fact that the DSNO has hosted @large interest and must disengage 
(cf. Joe Sims statement) makes the IDNH - as a separate entity form the 
IDNO - a structural aspect. We cannot talk about a DNSO reform without 
caring about the way 20 or 100 millions of Members will be integrated.
3. Due to the size and the commonly agreed need of the IDNH we have a good 
example whihc permits us to see the difficulty/the complexity of creating a 
center of interest as requested by Karl while having it formalized as you 
request. We have to produce a documented response. I think that IHDN (size) 
and (STLD because of the easy identifaction of the Members) are good 
examples for us to observe and report.
4. I would also like to show, through some new examples - so there is not 
yet any historic - that center of interests must dialog together. And that 
IDNH interests cover issues of interest to all or cross interests like 
UDRPs with TMs, member names with sTLDs etc...  This is on my opinioin one 
of the reason of the DNSO failure: the lack of internal relations. I am 
surprised as a DNSO/BC member at the absence of any information, any 
discussion ...

Now I fully agree that we should not go to a detailed approach and that 
this should be reserved to a separate subWG list. This is what I asked for 
initially and what will be partly carried de facto withthe site we will 
open these days. But my initial motion has been seconded by several members 
and supported by others with the provision it would be a subject on YJ 
Park's list. In summarizing the points risen by several to comply with the 
WG-Review standard, I asked for additional questions, not for responses nor 
debate. I will certainly collect these responses but they were not 
expected. After all the WG-Review members decide (this is also what we want).

Now, your personnal position as a NIC very near from your users might be a 
source of some DNSO/IDNH related action points of interest for the NC and 
the BoD?

Jefsey

On 05:53 30/12/00, Peter de Blanc said:
>While I support the idea of an Individual Domain Name Holder constituency, I
>do not agree with the use of wg-review forum/list to get into the details of
>how it might be organized, or any other level of granularity on the subject.
>
>We need to keep this list tightly focused.
>
>peter de Blanc