<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH - please support this motion
Jefsey at al,
Let me remind you of a previous motion drafted by Chris McElroy, amended by
David Farrar, who made excellent supporting arguments, also seconded by
Eric Dieker, myself and possibly others. For my part, I have since
corrected grammatical oversights, but not the meaning. For those who wish to
check, I have copied the originals at the end of this letter.
IMO I believe these two statements confirm the position of this WG at this
moment in time very well. Jefsey, your motion asks members to think about
legal and technical grounds which they may not be qualified to judge, so I
object to it for that reason. What's good about both Chris Motion and
Joop's statement is that they use plain English, which can be understood I
hope by those here who do not speak English perfectly and that is not a
small achievement. (I agree with Cindy Merry about use of language).
If members agree, then, I imagine Chris McElroy's motion could be included
in the Appendix for 4. IDNH, together with Joop's post for the @Large vs.
Individual Domain Name Registrants, which has no objections and plenty of
support. If the two are contiguous, meaning posted together in the same
Appendix, then there is nothing to be misread in Joop's use of the word
Owner, so I let it be.
Joanna
Here is Chris McElroy's Motion followed by Joops statement together:-
"The WG Review has reached a near consensus
>that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
>Registrants. This WG has not addressed the matter of how to implement this
new
>Constituency, neither has it proposed what group should represent them, nor
>how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or
>selected within six months.
We specifically propose a dedicated
working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
on the structure and functioning of the constituency.
>We ask that this process be expedited in this
>way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in
>the process in the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put
on
>the agenda as a top priority and that public comment will be sought on how
this
>constituency shall be formed.
How an individual domain name
registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and
the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There
is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO
through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and
negotiated with those constituencies."
and Joop Teernstra's statement:
>
> >The @large is
> >1. an disorganized 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.
Joanna Lane
>
<Jefsey wrote:-
Dear Joana,
1. there is not two "factions". There are technical and legal terms which
have
a meaning. As long as DN have not been legally and technically
described
you do not know if the word "owner" may apply (the USG and many
acknowledged lawyer doubt it can). Even would you be President of the UN
Court (where the case may eventually resolve) you could not today talk
about this as an estabilshed fact.
[Joanna] It was not my intention to use a loaded word and I apologize if my
efforts to acknowledge different opinions over this issue has left a "messy"
impression. However, it is my impression that members fully appreciate the
need to define exactly what is a domain name definition and that meanwhile,
the Owner/Holder "non-issue" can be deferred.
I therefore motion that
"
This WG-Review stops talking about "ownership" vs. "holdership" and
adopt the common notion from the ICANN bylaws and contracts signed
by involved parties that the DNs are registered to the name of a
registrant,
by a registrar on a registry. And that to some extent allows its
Members
for convenience to talk about "holdership" while not precluding an
"ownership" which in the state of the art has no legal nor technical
ground.
[Joanna} I do not understand the implications of "which in the state of the
art has no legal nor technical
ground", so I do not agree with this motion.
I note this has absolutely no incidence on the fact that organizations
like
IDNO, Ralph Nader, and others may ligitimately talk about ownership as
their area of interests extend to areas which do not concern ICANN and
which are areas of ownership such as:
- the value of the commercial name
- the value of the site
- the value of the commercial agreements passed including that name
- the investment and work spent on the TM, the reputation, the site,
the finding of the name (copyrights), the logo, etc... etc...
2. As commented to Joop and Greg and accepted by Joop, the response
of Joop is fully accurate and describes the present status of the
350.000.000 "individual users" (@large) for which the ICANN is
investing
a very important study to remedy to the risen points. It is obviousoy
not
a defense of the 15.000.000 "individual domain holders". This kind of
confusion is extremely detrimental to the @large, to the DNSO and to
the IDNH cause as informed decision makers only retain the idea that
the individual domain name registrants/holders cause is messy. What
it is not.
Jefsey
On 03:10 15/01/01, Joanna Lane said:
>I second David's proposal to include this summary in the report. However, I
>would suggest we replace "an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency
>..." with "an Individual Domain Name Owners/ Holders Constituency .... "
so
>as to elicit as much support as possible from both factions.
>Joanna Lane
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of DPF
>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:37 AM
>To: wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
>TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
>
>
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:47:17 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>I think Joop has done a brilliant summary here and would suggest that
>the above be included in any report if there is widespread agreement
>with it.
>
>DPF
>________________________________________________________________________
><david at farrar dot com>
>NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:10:05 -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
>I am not making this a motion yet, and would like to see others reword and
>edit what I have written here until we have something that can be presented
>as an opinion we have consensus on.;
Excellent.
>The WG Review has reached a consensus
As one member is admantly opposed we willhave to call it a near
consensus assuming there are not other contrary views.
>that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
>Registrants. This WG is not going to address how to implement this new
>Constituency, nor is it going to propose what group should represent them
or
>how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or
>selected within six months.
If there is support for it I would specifically propose a dedicated
working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
on the structure and functioning of the constituency.
Some may argue that the DNSO should have no say in the structure in
that it is up to constituencies to totally self organise and petition
the Board. I believe a case can be made that an individuals'
constituency is somewhat unique as oppossed to others which have
considerable more resources through existing businesses and
organisations participating in them. Therefore I think there is a
good case for a DNSO WG to work and propose a structure which will be
able to gain widespread support.
>We ask that this process be expedited in this
>way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in
>the process to begin with. We further hope that you would put this matter
on
>the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on how this
>constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICANN
Budget.
Yep.
>There has been suggestions that an amount come directly from the
>registration of domain names proportionate to the share of expenses this
new
>constituency must pay.
I would possibly change this to "How an individual domain name
registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and
the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There
is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO
through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and
negiotated with those constituencies."
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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|