RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@hotpop.com>]

Dear Joanna,
This discussion concerns the IDNO which is per se not a Member of the DNSO 
nor of this Working Group. I am afraid that this off topic and my 
confuse/upset different people. IDNH is certainly not IDNO however IDNO 
Members are most welcome. I would hate that non IDNO members would be 
rebuked from participating into IDNH because of this.

Let be clear, center of interests as DNSO/IDNH ( http://idnh.org ) or 
DNSO/STLD ( http://stld.org ) are Centers of Interests as suggested by 
Karl. They are currently presented as non DNSO structures within this 
WG-Review group and strictly abiding by the rules of this WG-Review Group. 
They will probably become parts of the DNSO/GA once this WG-Review Cole 
shop. They are set up according to Karl Auerbach's initial proposition: any 
Member form the GA may participate. Their working rules and achievements 
should result from the Greg Burton's set of rules and tools under work for 
consensus not about a matter, but about having reported all the 
alternatives and disagreement on that matter in calling upon the broadest 
number of different qualified professionals available.

Last point. From my knowledge of the IDNO: the IDNO is more an @large 
organization which should actively support and participate into the @large 
movement. What will probably remain DNSO/GA/IDNH is a pole of competences 
and interest. IDNO should one way or another unite millions of idnowners.

It is your glory to have permitted this to occur. Thank you Joanna. I tried 
to pay a tribute to the people who most helped or - in my case - who 
awkwardly participated. I hope you will not object from what you told me 
that I listed your name among the useful links.

Jefsey

On 21:07 06/01/01, Joanna Lane said:
>Joop wrote:-
><Not to re-invent the wheel all over, please refer to
>http://www.idno.org/organiz.htm  Art 4.>
>
>Thanks Joop.
>Frankly I'm disappointed by a few things in IDNO's proposal, but I
>acknowledge that much good work has been done with it also. If my take on
>this is not favored by colleagues I am sorry. I'm not here for the
>popularity contest.
>
>4.1 Colour of Title - I disagree
>First I have a small, but important issue. The language you are using is not
>plain English and very difficult to understand. If we are to be consistent
>with your proposal, we would have to call this group the  "Individuals with
>Colour of Title Constituency"... Doesn't exactly make sense or roll off the
>tongue !  I don't follow the logic of using the label  "Individual Domain
>Name *Holders* Constituency", then omitting to use the word *holder* in the
>body of the text when referring to members and/ or their criteria. Any word
>can be clarified in the definitions (as you have done in 4.3) so why have
>you invented new words, (including one that has no consistent spelling) when
>existing ones do the job reasonably well?
>
>If "holder" really is not the best word (and I am inclined to think that it
>is), then let's find a substitute that is commonly used. This must
>encapsulate some meaning without requiring a person to read a four paragraph
>explanation to grasp the essence of what you are talking about.
>Hieroglyphics would be better that  "color of title" for the guy with
>average IQ points, IMHO.
>
>4.9  Non-Exclusivity - I disagree.
>A person who is a member of another constituency, and in particular one who
>receives direct financial remuneration and/ or gratuities from a corporate
>entity that makes its living from the internet, could be perceived by
>individuals as having a corrupting influence and therefore, however eminent
>that person may be, (s)he has no place in an individuals constituency unless
>invited as a guest, consultant, advisor.
>
>It is one of life's choices whether or not to work for a corporate paymaster
>and I think it's a reasonable statement to make that the self-employed often
>resent being told what is in their best interests by other groups who do not
>have the same values, priorities and liabilities (and visa versa I would
>add). It's a source of friction that is not particularly useful and given
>that it is almost impossible to disprove personal accusations when it comes
>to bribes and conflict of interest issues, it will be the Court of Public
>Opinion that decides the fate of both accused and accuser. Therefore, I
>believe it is inevitable that the ultimate effect of this rule, if passed,
>will be degenerative instability of ICANN administration that could reach
>the highest levels.
>
>4.12 Honorary members.- I disagree
>This is setting double standards. A Member must qualify under a single set
>of rules, whatever they may be, with no exceptions, or it is sending mixed
>messages to both existing members and the general public. "Well known
>Individuals" is subjective in the extreme. Well known to whom? Could these
>key people not contribute as guests, advisors or consultants if they do not
>meet the criteria?
>
>I have no problem with the rest of it.
>Regards,
>
>Joanna
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


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