Re: [ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain Name Holdershipdefinition

["Dennis Schaefer" <apsdps@mediaone.net>]

Eric --  Don't forget to mention that within the USA, ICANN
is hemmorhaging legitimacy at an unprecedented rate.

Throughout the country,  people feel that ICANN is a complete failure.  They
would like to see it fold.  They feel that Esther Dyson et. al. have proven
themselves
to be a shadow world government, seeking to assert power over individual
users much in the manner of OPEC or the international drug cartel.

Cheers


Dennis Schaefer
Marblehead MA
USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@hi-tek.com>
To: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain Name
Holdershipdefinition


> Then I guess it should go something like this:
> 1.    WG recommends a IDNHc.
> 2.    the recommendation goes to the task force.
> 3.    The task force may include the recommendation to the DNSO
> 4.    Mr. Teemstra and the formed group petition the BoD.
> 5.    because of the considered recommendation from this group which was
well
> reasoned and based on a reasonable consensus and was forwarded to the BoD
by the
> DNSO, the BoD has no grounds upon which to reject the new constituency.
> 6.    The BoD rejects it anyway.
> 7.    There is even more disenfranchisement, ccTLds move to alternative
root
> servers and lawsuits are filed against ICANN at an alarming rate.
> 8.    Meanwhile registrars take the cue from Verio and register.com
realizing
> that ICANN has even less validity and power than before, and run roughshod
over
> the consumers.
>
> Well gosh darn it I need the internet, so we just better come up with a
way to
> make this work.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear Eric,
> > On 21:53 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
> > >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.
> >
> > Actually the important thing is to get rid of the constituency system
which
> > is rather an US centric notion. Since only in American English a
> > constituency may possibly reach a consensus. In other parts of the world
> > (96%) a constituency is a component for a vote, i.e. the antithesis of a
> > consensus. This is a constitutionalist view. A practical traslation
> > rationale is that the system has failed as most agree.
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > It is a mandatory step. But not in an SO consulting organization. It has
to
> > be done in the @large field. An there the IDNO organization created a
long
> > ago by Joop Teemstra as a real lead. Buth there are others. For example
> > Ralph Nader initiative quoted here is one them. This is why I copy this
> > mail to GA, for Jamie Love and others may read it, so we can renew
contact
> > on this topic of the defence of the idnower as a consumer. As we got
> > contact with other consumer organization in Europe.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > PS. Frankly the most complicated thing seems to make understand that by
ill
> > reasoning DNSO has hosted until now most of the @large concerns under
the
> > name of constituencies and that that they are going to go back where
they
> > belong, i.e. to the @large mouvement. Leaving the DNSO resume its bylaws
> > defined duties, procedures and methods as an SO. Probably because it
look
> > stern to many. Well itis, but it is basic job which has been over
delayed
> > with very bad consequences for all of us.
> >
> > Jefsey Morfin wrote on WG-Review:
> >
> >  > 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's 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!).
> >  >
> >  > 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html