Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chris,
There is a confusion. Let me explain As I motion IDNH and installed
http://indh.org and I am
ExecCom of IDNO with Joop.

1. IDNH is a proposition of this WG-Review at my initiative for a subject
of discussion (Center of Interest). Mainly lead by Joana Lane. This
initiative is to take care of idnholding general problems and cocsensual
solutions on a technical point of view withingthe DNSO/GA.

2. IDNO is in organization created by Joop from which most of the old
timers in the WG-Review went through which would be interested in
becoming a DNSO constituency. IDNO has a natural importance within the
ICANN where the concept has many supporters and a strong opposition.

Question asked by Joop is which approach do you support. Normal responses
we expect is "both". If there is an alternative, this is a bug.
Both approaches are parallel and of mutual assistance in the best
interest of ICANN and idnowers. Maybe the Booth is no able to understand
that. Please note that Joop is moving his house, working on his portable
as he can. This maty result into problems.

Jefsey

On 13:47 10/01/01, Chris McElroy said:
> Joop, I
> wasn't aware I had to vote for the IDNO or the IDNH. By posting it that
> way it makes it easy to say neither has any consensus when we are
> supposedly fighting for the same thing. All but one voted for one or the
> other, but that still effectively makes it appear split. Was this your
> idea or someone else's?
>  
> If Individual Domain Name Holders, which is
> what I thought IDNH stood for have a chance to form a decent proposal,
> they can not be split on the issue. Just because we are also examining
> what the membership requirements are does not mean we are divided on
> topic and goals. Why would you think splitting the two would achieve
> anyone's goals?
>  
> If it was not your idea, then I pose the
> question to whoever thought it was a good idea. It is my impression that
> we are not pushing a particular group, just trying to gain a constituency
> for Individual Domain Name Holders. Holders for this purpose was a better
> description than Owners since Domain Names are not currently assessed as
> property.
>  
> I would like someone to clarify this for me.
> Preferrably someone who voted for one or the other and not he one who
> voted against both.
>  
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic