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

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:54 11/01/01 -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
>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

I agree. 
The division between IDNOC and IDNHC ticks will be ignored.

The vote will be interpreted only by looking at the percentage that voted
against a Constituency for Individual DN Holders. 

--Joop


>
>----- 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
>
>
>

--
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