RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

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

At 13:19 13/01/01 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Greg and all,
>I am to remind you that the individual constituency does exist and is 
>represented by 9 Directors and has a budget through the DNs.

Jefsey,

This is no different from what Joe Sims and Mike Roberts tried to tell me
in Berlin.

It is not a position I can accept. 

The @large is
1. an unorganized jumble of all Internet users' diverse interests.
2. without Charter or Mission statement
3. without means of the members to contact each other
4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the Board or do
away with it altogether
5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests directly
opposed to typical DN holders' interests.
6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff.
7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board 

An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is:

1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in
control of its own Charter and destiny
2. part of the DNSO where Domain  Name Policy initiatives are developed 
3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of the
policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board)
via its own elected officers
4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be considerably
more legitimate than it is now.


That reducing 
>it to a representation of 3/8 of a Director plus additionnal charges may be 
>considered, by some, as a huge progress worth the innumerable number of 
>exachanged mails here goes far beyond my low IQ understanding. If some of 
>the IDNO/HC activists could explain me the rational of it I will be very 
>thankfull.

To simplify what I said above: An IDN/HO is NEEDED in a DNSO that maintains
other "constituencies".
If it is also organized inside the @large, so much the better.

Let me be on record as opposing the motion that Jefsey has presented with
regards to an IDNH "center of interest" that is supposed to be part of the
@large only and not of the DNSO. 
I call for more objections and a vote on the different IDNH proposals.


 





--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://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