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

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

< it is the ICANN Bylaws, for their own reasons, that  impose this
open structure on DNSO constituencies.>

Joop wrote:
<... it is the ICANN Bylaws, for their own reasons, that  impose this
open structure on DNSO constituencies.>

Would it be advisable to review ICANN Bylaws with specific reference to
"Non-Exclusivity" issues that affect IDNH constituency member interests and
for WG/IDNH to make proposals for possible amendments ?

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

I would simply say either
a)  "IDNH constituency membership is open to any person who is an individual
domain name holder" or
b) "IDNH constituency membership is open to any group of individual domain
name holders"
This is dependant upon the outcome of the first item on the 11.IDNH task
list posted at http://www.idnh.org
Whatever the outcome it will be necessary to obtain a formal technical and
legal definition for  "individual",  "holder" and possibly  "group".
( "domain name"  is already on the agenda).

Are these appropriate questions to add to the 11.IDNH task list at
http://www.idho.org if the chair is amenable?

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