RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I agree with Chris-

Joop, I've been watching you champion IDNH constituency through almost 2
years of meetings.

I support the IDNH concept, period. This IDNO stuff is new, and diverts
energy from your original concept.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of J J Teernstra
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:18 AM
To: Chris McElroy; jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest


At 04:47 10/01/01 -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
>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?
>

Chris,

I am sorry if the format has caused confusion or the appearance of a split.

All I wanted was to gather additional preference data.
As I explained to Harald, those who do not have any name preference, can
tick both IDNOC or IDNHC.
The name that we agree on for the eventual constituency is not
unimportant.(pronounceability, for one thing)

>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.

I take full responsibility. I thought it was a good idea, and you think it
was not.
Please make it not into something that creates a rift. Both of us, and
almost everybody else here, agree on the need for the Constituency.
This is primarily what the Poll seeks to establish.

Putting up polling questions is a sensitive job, I realize.
It is better that an elected Chair takes responsibility for the final
formulations and I am looking forward to receiving Polling instructions from
the newly elected Chair.

In the meantime, I've just tried to be of help.

> 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.

"Currently "is the operative word. The current situation is fluid. There is
still a long political and legal way to go to clarify or broaden the rights
of a Domain Name registrant.
The Constituency is there to help with that process.

The 200 odd members of the CA/IDNO support the term owners.
From debate in IDNO-discuss it has become clear that those who strongly
oppose the term "owners" , are people with deep concerns about (alternate or
ICANN) registrar business models.

Joop Teernstra, LL.M.
the Cyberspace Association
the Individual Domain Name Owners'constituency
www.idno.org


--
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