Re: [ga] Joop's motions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Bill,
if you would be so kind as to refer to the ALSC meeting
and documents (@lager Study Group) you would see that
the USO is a pending matter. Often as a way to fight the
@large. Here some comments:

1. again and again we come accross the confusion
     introduced by Dennis Jenning and taken into the
     bylaws by Joe Sims (I have no time to go accross
     the WG-R archives but you will find a copy of Joe's
     testimony there). The DNSO has been built both
     to be a DNS Support Organisation *and* to welcome
     user concerns (what is the @large role). Hence a
     constant back anf forth confusion maintained by
     Hans Kaijenbrink and als. because 9 seats at the
     BoD are at stake.

On 20:56 14/05/01, William S. Lovell said:
>To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
>user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
>then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
>and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
>There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
>the military), but perhaps there should be

The USO would be a way to achieve two things against
e-democraty and to support large TM holders:

-  to deny Joop and als' efforts for and IDNHC, and to some
    extent to an SMEC, in dilluting and confusing them in an
    hypothetical 4th SO (80% of DN holders excluded...)

-  to reduce @large representation at the BoD to 3 seats (as
    the other SOs) rather han 9.

>- I correspond
>with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
>is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
>interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
>proper issue for the GA.

This is THE issue. The individual users represent 97%++
of the stakeholders. The use of the DNS is based on their
consensus to use it. There are right now various potential
fashions about possible new trends in using the old DNS.
Would they use/demand them or not will make a
tremendous difference.

Exemple: if the fashion is after new TLDs for simplification
of the access. iCANN will not last long against press and
consumer associations.

If the market becomes fed-up with the stupid restictions
imposed by the large TMs (there are 10.000s of TM owners
not having a DN and not necessarily happy with brother
Jonathan Cohen: they would like most probably to be in
a position not to vote for him)

Where do you think multi-lingual DNs come from? not from
chinese DN holders: there were none!

Please identify on this ML how many non US citizens.
Far East people think that the DNSO is WASP reserved.
And is it not?

Exemple: I certainly cross the 5 posts a day limit. But
would this GA respect the spirit of the bylaws about
geographical repratition we would consider the post
balance between NA, SA, Africa, Europe and Far-East
(and may be the balance in individual users between
Far-East and NA, now and 10 years from now).

These are certainly netwide IU subjects concerning the
DNSO very different from the @large concerns about
IDN market support in China, e-business development
in Europe, commercial conflicts between Cisco and
other large groups, anti-Digital Divide projects in Africa
or impact of IPv6 on the banking, transport, banking,
health, etc... industries.

You see, nobody will make believe that Mr. Stuart
Lynn and Louis Touton with the occasionnal help
of Andrew McLauhglin can seriously be considered,
as able to handle alone the e-development of the planet.

Cheers.

Jefsey

>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > I am sorry Sotiris, but IC is too short as it conflicts with
> > Individual User Constituency and Indvidual User Center of
> > Interests (IUCI). The WG-Review has stabilized as IDNH
> > and IDNHC after a lot of disputes. This was reflected in the
> > Chair approbation of the subject for discussion.
> >
> > Anyway there is an obvious mnemonic conflict between
> > the two requests and an overwhelming silent majority in
> > favor of the individual users :-).
> >
> > I recall you that Individual Users as to be prefered to
> > End User as the Internet is an independent station
> > oriented system (there is no "end") and "EU" would
> > be confusing with Europe?
> >
> > I add that the Individual User is absolutely not represented
> > in the DNSO - while is some ways IDNHs and SMEs are -
> > while IUs are going to be the deciding segment: should
> > IUs opt for a MultiRoot solutions, or when will hey do will
> > have a dramatical impact on the DNSO mission and
> > structure.
> >
> > I am afraid that all this leads us to a new confusion against
> > the IDNHs in pretending that IDNHs are to be confused
> > with Individual Users.
> >
> > I do not buy the possible confusion between IDNH and
> > IDNO. It would be like saying that USA and USSR where
> > so confusingly near that the "USA" had to be called
> > "Europe".
> >
> > IMHO we have another problem: there is an abvious
> > possible confusion between DNSO/IC and DNSO/BC.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > On 16:51 14/05/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> > >Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >  At 13:36 13/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I
> > > >> would strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be
> > > >> given the term "Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too
> > > >> many "fumble fingers" in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO
> > > >> will get confused, and people may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one
> > > >> when they mean the other.
> > > >
> > > > That is right and this is the reason why I have proposed calling it
> > > > the IC.
> > >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
> > >disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
> > >offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
> > >proposal paper.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC
> > > >> one goes
> > > >> through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves
> > > >> as
> > > >> candidates.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That would indeed be a false premise. However, I do not advocate it.
> > > > If the IDNO has to die in order for an IC (with a universally approved
> > > > structure---tiny problem: how are you going to get that) to take it's
> > > > place, that is fine with me.
> > > >
> > > >

--
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