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

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Forwarding this to the list for Rod. Also, Joanna, Joop, Jeffsey, and others
please look this over carefully. I suggest we heed the advice. I agree 100%
with what Rod has said here. It's up to them to choose who or what group
should represent Individual Domain Name Holders. It's up to us to make sure
our recommendation is that they do select SOMEONE for this so an IDNH
Constituency will happen.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Dixon" <rodd@cyberspaces.org>
To: "Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest


> Chris,
>
> I am away from my computer. If you are able to, you may post my comment to
> the list.
>
> I voted for "IDNH" thinking it referred to a DN constituency of only
> individuals (I thought "IDNO" was used to refer to a DN constituency of
> both individuals and organizations). As you can see, I read a lot into
> that poll question, if I got it wrong. I agree with you that voting for a
> specific
> organization is premature, and, perhaps, inappropriate for the WG. I do
> not think the WG ought to go on record supporting specific organizations
> who are seeking constituency status in the DNSO. I think the poll question
> should be removed, if that is its purpose. And, I say this even though I
> am a member of the Cyberspace Association. I think it is important that
> this WG maintain its neutrality on that issue. If we propose the rules, we
> should not propose the decision.
>
> Rod
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, 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?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>

--
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