[ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain Name Holdership definition
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: [ga] Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] Individual Domain Name Holdership definition
- From: Jefsey Morfin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:32:44 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <3A5CCBB8.4886E34B@HI-TEK.COM>
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 21:53 10/01/01, Eric Dierker said:
>All right, there appears to be very valid reasons why we should not create
>constituency. It would appear that rather than a constituency, IDNH
>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
>it more correctly belongs, with the users, then perhaps it is a necessary
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.
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> >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
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html