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

["rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca>]

Andrew, you say it well, and I echo both of these statements. /R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Moulden" <andrew@FoolStop.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] my posting to the ICANN forum


> 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
>


--
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