Re: [wg-review] Review WG Report on Constituencies

[Rod Dixon <rodd@cyberspaces.org>]

I am responding to Joop's message simply to add emphasis to his point
about  *.org. I understand that some have indicated that the future of
.org is much ado about nothing, but this is simply not correct. I think it
is the most disturbing decision made behind closed doors so far. I hope
there is some discussion in Melbourne about this. The implications of the
statements concerning .org that were posted yesterday on the domain policy
list are astounding. I think the very idea that .org could be altered
without the input of those who are participating in ICANN (not to mention
the rest of the Internet community) shows a serious lack of good-faith and
a disturbing degree of overreaching on the part of the ICANN bureaucracy.
I cannot imagine what legal basis ICANN could use to divest current domain
name holders in .org without substantial compensation. More to the point,
why was this even considered a legitimate possibility without consulting
the entire ICANN body? I hope those in Melbourne get satisfactory answrs,
but I am not sure there are any. The question is: what are current .org DN
onwers going to do about this?



Rod



On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 20:09 4/03/01 -0500, Babybows.com said:
> >The Topic Report on Constituencies has been posted to the Public Comment
> >Forum.  It may also be viewed at the following URL:
> >http://www.babybows.com/constituencies.htm
> >
> >The report is a little more than sixty pages long (so it might take a little
> >longer than 2 minutes on a 56K modem to download).  All comments are
> >appreciated.
> >
>
> Danny,
>
> Your report is very comprehensive. Thank you for all the work that you have
> put into it. I believe the mood, opinions , proposals and motions in the WG
> are adequately reflected.
>
> The section on the Individual Domain Name Holders constituency is quite
> complete and there is little that I could add to it.
>
> But , does the recording of our opinions achieve what we want it to achieve?
> Or does it play into the hands of those who feel that the DNSO is already
> too much democracy?
>
> We have just seen the ICANN Staff and Mike Roberts happily ignore the
> existence of the DNSO altogether in what are possibly the most important DN
> policy decisions for years to come: the  Verisign deal and the proposed
> policy changes for .org.
>
> By emphasising how rotten the boroughs of the DNSO are, are we not helping
> the ICANN staff to justify "routing around the DNSO" and put themselves in
> the place of the NC when it comes to policy-advice to the Board?
>
>
>
>
> --Joop--
> Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
>        The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
> --
> 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