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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:13:30 +1300, J J Teernstra wrote:
>At 07:04 12/01/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>>For the record I prefer the term holder to owner also (and am a member
>>of IDNO).  Domain Names are not sold by registries because if they
>>were that would imply registries owned the names in the first place
>>before selling them.
>
>If the word Holder is a prerequisite for being acceptable by the NC, then
>let's hear that from the NC members, who are on the Task Force and present here.

I don't think it is a huge issue and certainly support the concept of
an individuals' constituency regardless of what it is called.

I believe holders is a better compromise as even if 50% support
holders and 50% support owners, those who believe people own domain
names can also accept that they hold them as well as own them (a
truism basically).  However those who do not believe people own them
but only hold them are less happy with owners being in the
constituency name.

So basically what I am suggesting is that by using the term domain
name holders this allows both camps of thought to stay happy as being
called a holder does not mean you do not accept you are not also a
owner.  

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
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