Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] my posting to the ICANN forum

[Andrew Moulden <andrew@FoolStop.com>]

Joop,

I commend your openness in making those blunt statements in this and your 
previous posting, and hope that Board members will understand that they 
represent an accurate summary of the feelings of many at this point.

Danny,

I would like to add my thanks for your comprehensive constituencies report. 
It reads easily and communicates clearly the varieties of opinion expressed 
and those instances where there was broader agreement. In addition, I would 
endorse the main themes of your personal statement.

Andrew



At 00:57 08/03/01 +1300, you wrote:
>Recommendation for an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency
>
>The IDNO has petitioned the Board on 23 April 1999 to approve the admission
>to the DNSO of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency in principle.
>This is now nearly 2 years ago and no policy response has been received,
>except by way of an unofficial rejection letter by Esther Dyson and through
>the postings in public fora by Dave Crocker ("the IDNO is not even on the
>Board's radar screen") and Kent Crispin, who has revealed that the Board
>lost it's initial inclination to consider an IDNO constituency when it was
>told that it has become a magnet for disgruntled individuals with an axe to
>grind, or an "anti-ICANN constituency".
>
>There is no question that being rebuffed without given reasons increases
>the levels of frustration, bitterness and cynicism of those who try to
>participate in good faith.
>The stonewalling is the cause of anti-ICANN feelings in the constituency
>and it has to be recognized as such.
>To reverse cause and effect is not a basis for good policy.
>
>Personally, I am on the point of giving up on ICANN.
>Perhaps this is better for the IDNO.
>Attempting to participate in ICANN via this "bottom-up" constituency
>formation, has been very costly for me in personal terms.
>
>But as soon as the Board will approve the addition of an Individuals
>constituency to the DNSO, a great deal of frustration will melt away and
>the members of this constituency will be motivated again to work in a
>positive and constructive way to legitimize the DNSO as a representative
>body of DNS stakeholders.
>
>The decision is up to the Board and the Board alone.
>
>The Names Council would do well to let its Review task force read and
>summarize the Report on the Constituencies that has come from the WG
>(posted here in this forum) and heed the recommendation of the WG-Review to
>create a WG specifically dedicated to the formation details of an IDNHC.
>
>Joop Teernstra LL.M.
>Former bootstrap of the IDNO
>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

--
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