<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH - please support this motion
Thank you for your continuing hard work. Am I to understand that there has been
no objection to Joop's post as referenced here? In that case allow me to
interpret your request here as a motion and second from me. From my
understanding of the mandate and scheduling this is exactly what has been called
for and within this charter is a consensus.
Sincerely,
Joanna Lane wrote:
> Jefsey at al,
> Let me remind you of a previous motion drafted by Chris McElroy, amended by
> David Farrar, who made excellent supporting arguments, also seconded by
> Eric Dieker, myself and possibly others. For my part, I have since
> corrected grammatical oversights, but not the meaning. For those who wish to
> check, I have copied the originals at the end of this letter.
>
> IMO I believe these two statements confirm the position of this WG at this
> moment in time very well. Jefsey, your motion asks members to think about
> legal and technical grounds which they may not be qualified to judge, so I
> object to it for that reason. What's good about both Chris Motion and
> Joop's statement is that they use plain English, which can be understood I
> hope by those here who do not speak English perfectly and that is not a
> small achievement. (I agree with Cindy Merry about use of language).
>
> If members agree, then, I imagine Chris McElroy's motion could be included
> in the Appendix for 4. IDNH, together with Joop's post for the @Large vs.
> Individual Domain Name Registrants, which has no objections and plenty of
> support. If the two are contiguous, meaning posted together in the same
> Appendix, then there is nothing to be misread in Joop's use of the word
> Owner, so I let it be.
>
> Joanna
>
> Here is Chris McElroy's Motion followed by Joops statement together:-
>
> "The WG Review has reached a near consensus
> >that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
> >Registrants. This WG has not addressed the matter of how to implement this
> new
> >Constituency, neither has it proposed what group should represent them, nor
> >how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or
> >selected within six months.
> We specifically propose a dedicated
> working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
> on the structure and functioning of the constituency.
>
> >We ask that this process be expedited in this
> >way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in
> >the process in the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put
> on
> >the agenda as a top priority and that public comment will be sought on how
> this
> >constituency shall be formed.
> How an individual domain name
> registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and
> the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There
> is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO
> through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
> Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and
> negotiated with those constituencies."
>
> and Joop Teernstra's statement:
> >
> > >The @large is
> > >1. an disorganized 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.
>
> Joanna Lane
> >
>
> <Jefsey wrote:-
> 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.
>
> [Joanna] It was not my intention to use a loaded word and I apologize if my
> efforts to acknowledge different opinions over this issue has left a "messy"
> impression. However, it is my impression that members fully appreciate the
> need to define exactly what is a domain name definition and that meanwhile,
> the Owner/Holder "non-issue" can be deferred.
>
> 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.
>
> [Joanna} I do not understand the implications of "which in the state of the
> art has no legal nor technical
> ground", so I do not agree with this motion.
>
> 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
>
> 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
> >--
> >On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:10:05 -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
>
> >I am not making this a motion yet, and would like to see others reword and
> >edit what I have written here until we have something that can be presented
> >as an opinion we have consensus on.;
>
> Excellent.
>
> >The WG Review has reached a consensus
>
> As one member is admantly opposed we willhave to call it a near
> consensus assuming there are not other contrary views.
>
> >that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name
> >Registrants. This WG is not going to address how to implement this new
> >Constituency, nor is it going to propose what group should represent them
> or
> >how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or
> >selected within six months.
>
> If there is support for it I would specifically propose a dedicated
> working group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options
> on the structure and functioning of the constituency.
>
> Some may argue that the DNSO should have no say in the structure in
> that it is up to constituencies to totally self organise and petition
> the Board. I believe a case can be made that an individuals'
> constituency is somewhat unique as oppossed to others which have
> considerable more resources through existing businesses and
> organisations participating in them. Therefore I think there is a
> good case for a DNSO WG to work and propose a structure which will be
> able to gain widespread support.
>
> >We ask that this process be expedited in this
> >way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in
> >the process to begin with. We further hope that you would put this matter
> on
> >the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on how this
> >constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICANN
> Budget.
>
> Yep.
>
> >There has been suggestions that an amount come directly from the
> >registration of domain names proportionate to the share of expenses this
> new
> >constituency must pay.
>
> I would possibly change this to "How an individual domain name
> registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and
> the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There
> is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO
> through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,
> Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and
> negiotated with those constituencies."
>
> 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
begin:vcard
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|