Re: [ga] IUSO/IUAC an urgent necessity
Is this another language problem? I've never heard of the "Individual
before. Other than that, I concur entirely with what Jefsey says, and if by the
quoted term he simply means eliminating these legalistic impediments to the use
of domain names by Internet users around the world -- first conceived as a
making scheme by Network Solutions -- he could not be more correct. The digital
divide is also a cultural divide to which the NSI/Verisign/ICANN power elite
the GA "we know, you don't" power elite (see my other post of this date) both
(What is an "american joke organizer?")
(What does it mean to "serialize" an issue?)
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> On 11:15 10/06/01, WXW said:
> > The DNSO deals specifically with domain name/dns issues, and
> > as such those who have a direct stake and interest in that process
> > should be the ones who make up the constituencies in that supporting
> > organization.
> The Individual Usership is mostly concerned by society issues and the way
> the Naming System may help or create them. This if first to deal with the
> Digital Divide. When the WIPO wants to forbide teenths to access their
> favorite singing group site because it is named "Aspirine" or my delishop
> site because his Armenian name is the English acronym of an UN
> organization, and do not even consider Arabic, Chinese, Indian wording as
> to be protected etc... etc... there is a real problem.
> A problem which is now resolving: possible IU Members (i.e. the real world)
> start disregarding the Internet and its inneficient american joke organizer
> or use the nets their own open way (ex. NewNet, NameSlinger, foreign
> roots, and more to come...) Individual Users integration is of the essence
> if you want the iCANN to survive as one of the RSCs (root service centers).
> All the capacities - including the @large - represented at the iCANN or
> planed to be represented are on a supply side (telco, host, machine,
> software, content, media). All the problems we face are from the lack of
> the demand representation.
> We could represent it. As we are users too. But we have to reform (not
> review) the DNSO.
> We have to get rid of the word constituency first: the cultural problem is
> incredible. When I read Joanna, Joop, Jeff or Danny they will never
> understand each other as their thinking is obliterated by what a
> constituency is in their own local culture. We have to accept once for all
> that the DNSO is not representative. It is not a place where problems are
> disputed. It is a place place where problems should be solved. No one cares
> by who, as long as the system makes sure that every concerned need has been
> taken into account and satisfactorily addressed. By one or thousand people.
> This should allow us to serialize the issues, instead of the people. I am
> interested in every and more issues than covered by the DNSO. The current
> system prevents me to keep track because some MLs are barred to me and
> anyway they are either inactive or jammed (when you put people together
> without a target they just talk and argue on nothing). No-constituency, no
> sub-lists: centers of interests (one site, position links to be resolved
> into consensuses through an ML open to all) served by a common secretariat.
> Up to you folks. But the world will not wait much longer for you.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html