Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
On this one I have to side with Ken Stubbs. Those who own domain names
and those who do not have different issues, and Joop's distinction
the two should be preserved. I've also lobbied for adequate representation
for "mere users," but I don't think that's really a DNSO function --
what the "DN" means. (To repeat the obvious, until a body that specifically
represents individual users is set up, any user can jump in
on any list at
any time and speak out.)
I've also suggested that the word "constituency" presents some problems
terms of international understanding, and I floated a balloon that
we simply designate who the people are, e.g., Registrars, Domain Name
Holders, and so on. However, today I saw the term "center of
being used, and I like it. Subtle efforts to improve communications
entirety of the Internet community should be carried out, and this
one of them. That's an "outreach" in itself, and shows that whatever
may be the case, in a proper bottom up mode the GA is trying to do
best it can; rumor has it that not everyone is doing that. :-)
Leaping yet further into the fray, I suggest that if that new TLD organization
(sorry, guys -- I'm not a TLD owner so I skipped past the actual name)
send all of us on the ga list an announcement of their formation and
invitation to join (if qualified), we in the DNSO/ga fold could do
somehow, to people around the world who own domain names. Now that
would be outreach to the nth! (And pity the poor soul who would have
do it -- searching everyone's WHOIS and all that.)
Ken Stubbs wrote:
interesting logic here...
it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this
all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have
what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential
i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out"
enough to be truly "representative"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
> Dear Joop,
> I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
> There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
> My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
> of the DNS future.
> Your motion should read:
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
> for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
> Constiuency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.
> The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> that it place either the creation of such an Individuals Domain Name
> Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda
> a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.
> Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
> Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
> confused they will not vote.
> Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
> maters. Interested parties are:
> - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
> concerned parties):
> - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
> - organizations with their own name servers:
> non commercial
> - intersections with the DN name space: IP,
> freedom rights,
> - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:
> - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
> - hosted sites: individual DN holders
> - decision makers: BIND developpers (not
> Individual Users (they decide
of the future of the DNS
> through the way the want/demand
to use it.
> 2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
> need taken into account) nor a market
(people we want to
> best serve) organization. It is purely
> The groups of concerns present in the
DNSO have many
> other issues to deal with than the
DNS. So they may
> organize in many different structures,
> If we take the case of the individual
domain name holders.
> We have progressively agreed at the
> - holders was a restrictive word
acknowledging that the
> holder does not actually
own the DN.
> - owner was a legitimate name
to use by organizations
> (IDNO is not the
only one) to show that such organizations
> also consider what
the holder actually owns *in addition*:
> commercial image,
pages and software of the site,
> DN protection/insurrance
shemes he may subscribe to,
> 3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
> Individual Users. These people (us
all) decide of the DNS
> far more than any other existing DNSO
> The demonstration is New.net. The question
> no one has a real need for the iCANN,
but having the
> iCANN helps us all. This means that
the iCANN must
> be both product (what is possible)
and market (us) oriented
> or that Individual Users will progressively
> Internet into an OpenNet without the
> 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
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