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

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

She has a valid point. Title refers to Ownership to most who read it as does
IDNO. Doesn't the O represent the word Owner as well. The reason holder is
better is that domain names are not property anymore than a telephone
number. This is also why Trademarks should not apply to them. They are not
equivalent to property, nor are they equal to filing a DBA or Assumed Name
to do business under. If we fought to make Domain Nams Holders to be Owners
then the Trademark issues might be considered valid. As it stands now,
Trademarks should not apply to them. Ever known anyone to get sued for their
phone number because on the keypad it spelled someone's company name? I
don't know of one instance.

So personally I am the Holder of my domain names. No title. No ownership.
It's simply the letters designated to represent the numbers to get you to my
website. Nothing more nothing less. Therefore (Off Topic) There is no place
for a TM Constituency. Film at 11.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria


> 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
>

--
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