Re: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

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

All right, there appears to be very valid reasons why we should not create a new
constituency.  It would appear that rather than a constituency, IDNH should just
naturally occur within the GA.  However if a constituency is required simply for
the purpose of shifting the power base from controlling business interests to where
it more correctly belongs, with the users, then perhaps it is a necessary step.
Sincerely

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Creating a DNSO/IDNO constituency is so difficult a task and opposed by so many
> interests Kent Crispin clearly explained here yesterday that Joop Teemstra
> dedicated most of his life to it, creating it outside of the DNSO. But it
> will never
> happen, however half the people on this WG-Review have been a Member of
> Joop IDNO and three candidates out of three belong to it (the forth is not a
> Member most probably because he also did not know it by then, but learns
> fast!).
>
> But there will never be a DNSO/IDNO because
>
> - the DNSO is to resume its SO role and the objective of the IDNO are much
>    broader as a management tool. But beware It will be a key component of the
>    @large system if its Members understand it properly (if the IDNO plays its
>    part correctly it could very well eventually be the real owner of the
> ICANN,
>    from the French Minitel experience we had both in France and in the US).
>
> - the DNSO constituency system is obsolete and will disapear as soon as a
>    certain number of constituencies understand what @large is about and
>    other may take their role if they do not reorganise quick.
>
> - the IDNH is only a center of interests, a subject for people to work together
>    on individual domain name holding related general problems. Its role is to
>    uncover the underlaying consensa on the matter and to document them
>    to the benefit of the community and of the BoD; and then to derive, from
> the
>    expertise of all those who want to participate, advises concerning the way
>    to apply changes, new possibilities, legal options, etc.. at it is the role
>    of an SO. Please consult the bylaws. All is in there. IDNH is for lawyers,
>    engineers, representatives from IDNO like organization with a strong
>    training in Internet issues. It has no Members, but Participants keeping
>    contibuting through published and maintained position statements until
>    a consensus has been acknowledged by everyone. It is some place to
>    work seriously, competently among representive by qualification.
>
>    This is the same for the other DNSO/GA/CI resulting form this WG-Review
>     about DN, TLD, Consensus digging tools and methods.
>
> On 02:25 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
> > From what I have seen to date the elected members of the board are doing
> > their
> >job.  I feel very confident that once the IDNH is established that board
> >members
> >elected as a result of the constituency being in place will likewise do
> >their job.
> >I thought that by voting for the constituency on the polling site we were
> >basically insuring that it will become a reality.
>
> I hope this keep you understanding?
>
> Believe me: there is no stricter opponent to Kent Crispin than me, but
> most of what he writes is right. His premises are wrong (IMHO). He fights
> for an "USG-down" standalone "up avoiding to be trapped by a bottom"
> ICANN. I fight for an "half-bottom up" international cooperation for the
> administration of name and numbers. The visions are opposed: the reality
> evaluation is much equivalent. I say that so you can check me by my
> opposition.
>
> 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

Emanuel.exe