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

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 15:07 6/01/01 -0500, you wrote:

>
>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.
>

My apologies for the unplain English. 
The CA/idno long ago settled on the word "owner" . Holder is clearly a
compromise word to pacify bristling Registrars and Registries.

>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.
>

I , and many members, actually agree with what you say, and therefore there
are limitations on what members of other Constituencies can do in the IDNO.
However, it is the ICANN Bylaws, for their own reasons, that  impose this
open structure on DNSO constituencies.

>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?
>

This clause too is the result of a compomise among the Charter drafters.It
can be deleted for this particular purpose here.

It will be off-topic here to go deeper into it.

>I have no problem with the rest of it.
>

Great.

Could you then do an effort to rephrase in better English what we need here
for this IDNHC membership definition?

--
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