Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest
Joop, I wasn't aware I had to vote for the IDNO or
the IDNH. By posting it that way it makes it easy to say neither has any
consensus when we are supposedly fighting for the same thing. All but one voted
for one or the other, but that still effectively makes it appear split. Was this
your idea or someone else's?
If Individual Domain Name Holders, which is what I
thought IDNH stood for have a chance to form a decent proposal, they can not be
split on the issue. Just because we are also examining what the membership
requirements are does not mean we are divided on topic and goals. Why would you
think splitting the two would achieve anyone's goals?
If it was not your idea, then I pose the question
to whoever thought it was a good idea. It is my impression that we are not
pushing a particular group, just trying to gain a constituency for Individual
Domain Name Holders. Holders for this purpose was a better description than
Owners since Domain Names are not currently assessed as property.
I would like someone to clarify this for me.
Preferrably someone who voted for one or the other and not he one who voted
against both.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
|