Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

hello joop

a. i would like to note that the NCDNH constituancy does not, in my opinion,
certainly does not  reflect the opinions, influence and, or  views of mr
maher or the ip interests.

b. i would also agree that the current constituancies provide "frameworks"
for future expansion and if potential members do not feel that the
frameworks are representative enough then they should have the right to
petition directly to the ICANN board who originally approved the
constituancies for some form of re-dress.

i am not that knowledgable of the by laws but i would assume that there is
some sort of procedure in place for this process.

c. i fully acknowledge my principal activity and anyone i interact with
certainly has the opportunity to evaluate my comments and participation in
light of my open disclosure.
this should not preclude my participation in the individual constituancy.
many others are involved in businesses which are represented in other
constituancies and as long as they disclose their relationships their input
can be evaluated and weighted.




----- Original Message -----
From: "J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars


> At 16:07 2/01/01 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >bret ...
> >
> >agree strongly with #3 ... but  cant agree with  the #2...
> >
> >(someone has to make some strong arguments for #2 before I can see any
logic
> >in that statement)
> >
> Ken,
>
> It is not at all difficult to demonstrate that the ISP constituency is an
> interest grouping of *some* ISP's and that the Business Constituency is an
> interest grouping of Businesses heavily weighed in favour of a few early
> players.  Neither have the numbers that help them to credibly represent
the
> interests that they purport to represent.
> At best they provide a *framework* for a fairly weighed representation of
> such specific interests in the future.
> With the NCDNHC it is problematic that IP-players such as Mr Maher have
> played such a prominent role in its bootstrap phase and that an active
> registrar-player such as Kent Crispin can dominate the proceedings by
> representing a non-profit boating-club, but speak and act as a Registrar
> apologist.
>
> With the CA/IDNO it is no different. As long as it remains small, it is
> vulnerable to capture or sabotage by people who put on an Individual DN
> holder's hat, but who act on behalf of opposing or hostile interests.
>
> >#1 is a legitimate concern but #3 is the reason #1 hasn't been resolved
to
> >date
> >(too much in-fighting for power in the last 18 months there and an
inherent
> >failure to recognize that people like myself are also "individuals" .
just
> >because I make a living in this business doesn't mean that my individual
> >perspective cant be acknowledged)
> >
> Ken, please! Unless Afilias becomes a co-op of its registrants, your
"making
> a living" as a registrar is in fundamental conflict  with your interests
as
> an Individual DN holder.
> If you want to speak as individual DN holder, you must accept that you do
so
> with limited credibility where it concerns contracts with registrars.
>
> If you would oppose an NC recomendation to the Board that it should
> recognize an IDNOC or an IDNHC, you cannot credibly do so speaking as an
> Individual DN Holder.
>
>
> Joop Teernstra,
> Individual Domain Neme  Owners'constituency
> www.idno.org
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html