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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:40:03 +1300, J J Teernstra wrote:
>At 20:50 12/01/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>
>>
>>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.  
>>
>Yep.
> Even though I am always ready to argue for "ownership" , I will not do it
>here--if the "holders" can hold heir tongue too. I think consensus on
>"holders" is possible with the above understanding in mind.
>Unity at this point is a lot more important than winning an argument.
>
>Could you perhaps also agree on a constituency of Individuals with one vote
>each, rather than a constituency of Organizations?
>
>This is something I feel stronger about.

This issue is rather more complex that just the symbolism of a name.
My preference would be a dedicated working group draws up both models
and we see which one gets the best support.

However can I make very clear that I will support either model fully.
I have a preference for one model but if the majority want the other
model I will certainly support that.  

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