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

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 20:50 12/01/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>
>So basically what I am suggesting is that by using the term domain
>name holders this allows both camps of thought to stay happy as being
>called a holder does not mean you do not accept you are not also a
>owner.  
>
Yep.
 Even though I am always ready to argue for "ownership" , I will not do it
here--if the "holders" can hold heir tongue too. I think consensus on
"holders" is possible with the above understanding in mind.
Unity at this point is a lot more important than winning an argument.

Could you perhaps also agree on a constituency of Individuals with one vote
each, rather than a constituency of Organizations?

This is something I feel stronger about.

 

JOOP TEERNSTRA, LL.M.
the Cyberspace Association
the Individual Domain Name Owners'constituency
www.idno.org


--
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