RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Joop wrote:-
<Not to re-invent the wheel all over, please refer to
http://www.idno.org/organiz.htm  Art 4.>

Thanks Joop.
Frankly I'm disappointed by a few things in IDNO's proposal, but I
acknowledge that much good work has been done with it also. If my take on
this is not favored by colleagues I am sorry. I'm not here for the
popularity contest.

4.1 Colour of Title - I disagree
First I have a small, but important issue. The language you are using is not
plain English and very difficult to understand. If we are to be consistent
with your proposal, we would have to call this group the  "Individuals with
Colour of Title Constituency"... Doesn't exactly make sense or roll off the
tongue !  I don't follow the logic of using the label  "Individual Domain
Name *Holders* Constituency", then omitting to use the word *holder* in the
body of the text when referring to members and/ or their criteria. Any word
can be clarified in the definitions (as you have done in 4.3) so why have
you invented new words, (including one that has no consistent spelling) when
existing ones do the job reasonably well?

If "holder" really is not the best word (and I am inclined to think that it
is), then let's find a substitute that is commonly used. This must
encapsulate some meaning without requiring a person to read a four paragraph
explanation to grasp the essence of what you are talking about.
Hieroglyphics would be better that  "color of title" for the guy with
average IQ points, IMHO.

4.9  Non-Exclusivity - I disagree.
A person who is a member of another constituency, and in particular one who
receives direct financial remuneration and/ or gratuities from a corporate
entity that makes its living from the internet, could be perceived by
individuals as having a corrupting influence and therefore, however eminent
that person may be, (s)he has no place in an individuals constituency unless
invited as a guest, consultant, advisor.

It is one of life's choices whether or not to work for a corporate paymaster
and I think it's a reasonable statement to make that the self-employed often
resent being told what is in their best interests by other groups who do not
have the same values, priorities and liabilities (and visa versa I would
add). It's a source of friction that is not particularly useful and given
that it is almost impossible to disprove personal accusations when it comes
to bribes and conflict of interest issues, it will be the Court of Public
Opinion that decides the fate of both accused and accuser. Therefore, I
believe it is inevitable that the ultimate effect of this rule, if passed,
will be degenerative instability of ICANN administration that could reach
the highest levels.

4.12 Honorary members.- I disagree
This is setting double standards. A Member must qualify under a single set
of rules, whatever they may be, with no exceptions, or it is sending mixed
messages to both existing members and the general public. "Well known
Individuals" is subjective in the extreme. Well known to whom? Could these
key people not contribute as guests, advisors or consultants if they do not
meet the criteria?

I have no problem with the rest of it.
Regards,

Joanna





--
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