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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joop,
As you may recall I corrected Joana who misconstrued what you said,
explaining how your position was corrrect but did not apply to what she
was saying and in doing so she was embarassing us.

You confirmed what I said.

On 12:51 15/01/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 11:37 15/01/01 +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >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.
>
>That is my description of the @large. What the ICANN study is going to
>remedy still remains to be seen.

True.


> >  It is obviously not
> > a  defense of the 15.000.000 "individual domain holders".
>
>It is not a defense of anything.

It is difficult to say more equivalent things.

>It just describes the difference between
>the @large and a DNSO constituency for Individual DN registrants.

Always the same with you Joop: we are in full agreement on
most of the things, except that you always want to add the word
"constituency"!

When will you understand that the wored "constituency" belongs
to the @large?

@large and SO are two equivalent bodies in the bylaws. DNSO
is the part of the SO we consider today so it is legitimate for
you to refer to it. But comparing @large and an hypothetical
DNSO  constituency for Individual DN registrants is like
comparing the USA and the families of the NZ police offficers.
Both are equaliy repectable, but they are not structures in the
same layer.

Jefsey.




>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.
>
>I was trying to bring clarity in the confusion by answering your question.
>How  would that be detrimental to the IDNH cause? And how could any such
>clarification be detrimental to the still unorganized @large?
>
>If you favour the abolition of all constituencies, then obviously IDNH ers
>will be part of a new democratic structure that elects NC representatives.
>
>Or  is there a misunderstanding about that too?

You were doing nothing. I was responding to Joana who made the
confusion you spend your life to fight against (confusing @large et IDNO).
Fighting against that confusion takes so much of your time that I suppose
you think that entertaining and disseminating such a confusion is
detrimental to the interests you defend?

Jefsey

--
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