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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Creating a DNSO/IDNO constituency is so difficult a task and opposed by so many
interests Kent Crispin clearly explained here yesterday that Joop Teemstra
dedicated most of his life to it, creating it outside of the DNSO. But it 
will never
happen, however half the people on this WG-Review have been a Member of
Joop IDNO and three candidates out of three belong to it (the forth is not a
Member most probably because he also did not know it by then, but learns 
fast!).

But there will never be a DNSO/IDNO because

- the DNSO is to resume its SO role and the objective of the IDNO are much
   broader as a management tool. But beware It will be a key component of the
   @large system if its Members understand it properly (if the IDNO plays its
   part correctly it could very well eventually be the real owner of the 
ICANN,
   from the French Minitel experience we had both in France and in the US).

- the DNSO constituency system is obsolete and will disapear as soon as a
   certain number of constituencies understand what @large is about and
   other may take their role if they do not reorganise quick.

- the IDNH is only a center of interests, a subject for people to work together
   on individual domain name holding related general problems. Its role is to
   uncover the underlaying consensa on the matter and to document them
   to the benefit of the community and of the BoD; and then to derive, from 
the
   expertise of all those who want to participate, advises concerning the way
   to apply changes, new possibilities, legal options, etc.. at it is the role
   of an SO. Please consult the bylaws. All is in there. IDNH is for lawyers,
   engineers, representatives from IDNO like organization with a strong
   training in Internet issues. It has no Members, but Participants keeping
   contibuting through published and maintained position statements until
   a consensus has been acknowledged by everyone. It is some place to
   work seriously, competently among representive by qualification.

   This is the same for the other DNSO/GA/CI resulting form this WG-Review
    about DN, TLD, Consensus digging tools and methods.

On 02:25 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
> From what I have seen to date the elected members of the board are doing 
> their
>job.  I feel very confident that once the IDNH is established that board 
>members
>elected as a result of the constituency being in place will likewise do 
>their job.
>I thought that by voting for the constituency on the polling site we were
>basically insuring that it will become a reality.

I hope this keep you understanding?

Believe me: there is no stricter opponent to Kent Crispin than me, but
most of what he writes is right. His premises are wrong (IMHO). He fights
for an "USG-down" standalone "up avoiding to be trapped by a bottom"
ICANN. I fight for an "half-bottom up" international cooperation for the
administration of name and numbers. The visions are opposed: the reality
evaluation is much equivalent. I say that so you can check me by my
opposition.

Jefsey




--
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