RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joana,

1. there is not two "factions". There are technical and legal terms which have
    a meaning.  As long as DN have not been legally and technically described
    you do not know if  the word "owner" may apply (the USG and many
    acknowledged lawyer doubt it can). Even would you be President of the UN
    Court (where the case may eventually resolve) you could not today talk
    about this as an estabilshed fact.

    I therefore motion that

     "
     This WG-Review stops talking about "ownership" vs. "holdership" and
     adopt the common notion from the ICANN bylaws and contracts signed
     by involved parties that the DNs are registered to the name of a 
registrant,
     by a registrar on a registry.  And that to some extent allows its Members
     for convenience to talk about "holdership" while not precluding an
     "ownership" which in the state of the art has no legal nor technical 
ground.
     "

    I note this has absolutely no incidence on the fact that organizations like
    IDNO, Ralph Nader, and others may ligitimately talk about ownership as
    their area of interests extend to areas which do not concern ICANN and
    which are areas of ownership such as:

     - the value of the commercial name
     - the value of the site
     - the value of the commercial agreements passed including that name
     - the investment and work spent on the TM, the reputation, the site,
       the finding of the name (copyrights), the logo, etc... etc...

2. As commented to Joop and Greg and accepted by Joop, the response
     of Joop is fully accurate and describes the present status of  the
     350.000.000 "individual users" (@large) for which the ICANN is investing
     a very important study to remedy to the risen points. It is obviousoy not
     a  defense of the 15.000.000 "individual domain holders". This kind of
     confusion is extremely detrimental to the @large, to the DNSO and to
     the IDNH cause as informed decision makers only retain the idea that
     the individual domain name registrants/holders cause is messy. What
     it is not.

Jefsey











Jefsey







On 03:10 15/01/01, Joanna Lane said:
>I second David's proposal to include this summary in the report. However, I
>would suggest we replace  "an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency
>..." with  "an Individual Domain Name Owners/ Holders Constituency .... " so
>as to elicit as much support as possible from both factions.
>Joanna Lane
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of DPF
>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:37 AM
>To: wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
>TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
>
>
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:47:17 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> >The @large is
> >1. an unorganized jumble of all Internet users' diverse interests.
> >2. without Charter or Mission statement
> >3. without means of the members to contact each other
> >4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the Board or do
> >away with it altogether
> >5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests directly
> >opposed to typical DN holders' interests.
> >6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff.
> >7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board
> >
> >An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is:
> >
> >1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in
> >control of its own Charter and destiny
> >2. part of the DNSO where Domain  Name Policy initiatives are developed
> >3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of the
> >policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board)
> >via its own elected officers
> >4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be considerably
> >more legitimate than it is now.
>
>I think Joop has done a brilliant summary here and would suggest that
>the above be included in any report if there is widespread agreement
>with it.
>
>DPF
>________________________________________________________________________
><david at farrar dot com>
>NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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

--
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