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

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

The decision that a dedicated group determine the name is a good one.

DPF wrote:

> 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

Emanuel.exe