[ga-abuse] IDNO Complaints -- Fw: [Idno-discuss] Motion/Proposal

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Alexander & Kristy

WXW has posted what I think is a most constructive proposal on the IDNO
mailing list.  As an impartial person in the dispute between him and Joop, I
have seconded it.

It is my view that, if accepted by Joop, the fight will be over.

Could I ask you both to consider whether you might hold on determining the
relevant complaints just for a short while?  By that I mean those involving
IDNO.  In fact I think some other posters, such as Dassa, have also made
abusive remarks and I could lodge further complaints to cover any abusive
postings that have been missed.

However, my view is that the whole situation may be resolved amicably.

How do you feel about a short "pause" just for the IDNO complaints?

Regards
Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: William S. Lovell <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
To: <dassa@dhs.org>
Cc: William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>; Joop Teernstra
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@optimation.co.nz>;
<idno-discuss@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Motion/Proposal


>
>
> Dassa wrote:
>
> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> From: idno-discuss-admin@internetnz.net.nz
> > |> [mailto:idno-discuss-admin@internetnz.net.nz]On Behalf Of William X
> > |> Walsh
> > |> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:33 PM
> > |> To: Joop Teernstra
> > |> Cc: Steven Heath; 'idno-discuss@internetnz.net.nz'
> > |> Subject: [Idno-discuss] Motion/Proposal
> > |>
> >
> > I have left the full text of the original message below for clarity.
> > I second and support this motion.  Although I can not see the IDNO
> > becoming anything like a constituency in my lifetime I can see it
> > playing an important part in the formation of one.
>
> This comment aptly sums up a means for helping to avoid "past history"
> and also to eliminate one difficult problem: whenever any group sets
> out to gain official recognition as something or other within ICANN,
> there is the inevitable reaction that "these guys are trying to take
> over,"
> meaning that there is a hidden, power-seeking agenda by a clique
> rather than an honest effort to create a constituency that could
> serve the needs of individuals.  WXW's motion (and thank you
> for repeating it below; I am also leaving the whole thing in, in case
> anyone missed your post) solves those problems.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >  In the interest of
> > giving this the full consideration it deserves without external
> > influences I will refrain from commenting any further on the recent
> > transgressions against the IDNO principles I have noted.  In this
> > forum and the GA.
> >
> > This is an opportunity for us all to come together once again with a
> > common goal.  I hope everyone recognises this as the best approach.
> >
> > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
> > |> Normally when I make this kind of proposal I give an
> > |> advance copy to
> > |> certain people privately for their review and comment.
> > |> (and warning  :)
> > |>
> > |> I haven't in this case.  Oh well  :)    Instead they are
> > |> receiving an
> > |> extra copy via BCC this time.
> > |>
> > |> (of course, like most substantive things I propose, people
> > |> will just
> > |> pretend I didn't make it so that they can stick to their "wxw does
> > |> nothing substantive" mantra that is of course completely false)
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>
> > |> Tuesday, Tuesday, August 21, 2001, 9:33:21 PM, Joop
> > |> Teernstra wrote:
> > |>
> > |> > In view of the contentions and accusations leveled
> > |> against our Polling
> > |> > Booth based polling, administered by someone whose term
> > |> has expired,  this
> > |> > is a welcome offer, Steven.
> > |>
> > |> > The proper  order of pulling the idno back up by its
> > |> bootstraps, would be
> > |>
> > |> How about first we ask if the IDNO really should seek formal
> > |> reorganization again, and instead just exist as a virtual
> > |> forum where
> > |> advocates for a domain holders constituency can come to
> > |> coordinate and
> > |> receive updates, news, etc, from the more active participants.
> > |>
> > |> What are the reasons for seeking formal reorganization at
> > |> this stage?
> > |>
> > |> What do we gain from it?
> > |>
> > |> I think we may end up getting bogged down in internal IDNO
> > |> stuff when
> > |> instead we should be focused on matters relating advocating for a
> > |> constituency instead of advocating for the IDNO to be that
> > |> constituency.
> > |>
> > |> I move the following question be in order first:
> > |>
> > |> Whereas the IDNO has been unable to become a cohesive group or
> > |> organization over the last two years,
> > |>
> > |> Whereas the IDNO has not been able to achieve critical
> > |> mass either in
> > |> total members or in active participation,
> > |>
> > |> Whereas the IDNO has historical baggage which will only continue to
> > |> weigh it down more at the expense of domain holders'
> > |> representation in
> > |> the DNSO,
> > |>
> > |> Whereas no other constituency is an organization, and the bylaws do
> > |> not provide for an organization being recognized as a constituency,
> > |>
> > |> Whereas the IDNO is probably better suited to be an
> > |> advocacy group on
> > |> behalf of domain holders,
> > |>
> > |> Whereas the IDNO's founder is well suited as a "lobbyist" type
> > |> advocate for domain holders,
> > |>
> > |> Therefore by it resolved that:
> > |>
> > |> 1) The  charter be rescinded.
> > |>
> > |> 2) This organization be reformed as a consumer rights type
> > |> organization
> > |> created to lobby for greater representation of domain
> > |> holders in the
> > |> ICANN process, and to advocate for policies that
> > |> strengthen the rights
> > |> of domain holders.  The organization does not seek to become a
> > |> constituency in any fashion, but as a not for profit does seek to
> > |> advocate for the registrant's constituency and other
> > |> representations
> > |> for domain registrants in the ICANN process.
> > |>
> > |> 3) That this organization consider formally changing its
> > |> name to the
> > |> Cyberspace Association and dropping the IDNO moniker completely.
> > |>
> > |> 4) That this organization explore the possibility of becoming a
> > |> legally registered non-profit organization in New Zealand or
> > |> elsewhere.
> > |>
> > |> 5)  That an initial executive committee of 3 be appointed
> > |> to include
> > |> the organization's founder, the last chair of the IDNO Lists as
> > |> elected in the last election, and at least one member of the
> > |> "IDNO Opposition" such as Karl Peters or Darryl Lynch.
> > |>
> > |> 6) That Joop be appointed representative of the Cyberspace
> > |> Association
> > |> for the purposes of ICANN Board meetings, and be directed
> > |> to advocate
> > |> for the creation of an open domain registrants
> > |> constituency on behalf
> > |> of the Cyberspace Association and it's members.
> > |>
> > |> 7) That Joop be appointed temporary webmaster of the organization,
> > |> with the power to delegate this duty to a third party with the
> > |> approval of the executive committee.
> > |>
> > |> 8) That this act will put the IDNO and its history and
> > |> controversies
> > |> in the past once and for all, and that all members agree to let the
> > |> entire issue pass without any further comment publicly or
> > |> privately,
> > |> and that this include the members of the executive
> > |> committee, and that
> > |> attempting to bring up the IDNO history and issues again is grounds
> > |> for recall by the list members of any initial executive committee
> > |> member or representative.  The entire IDNO issue is to be
> > |> considered
> > |> dropped, and not relevant to our further work.  Anyone who cannot
> > |> accept this and abide by it is to be considered ineligible for any
> > |> leadership or elected position within the Cyberspace Association.
> > |>
> > |> 9) That the association act by on list consensus processes wherever
> > |> possible
> > |>
> > |> The domain name cyberspaceassociation.org has been
> > |> registered by this
> > |> member, and will gladly be donated to the IDNO with the
> > |> first year's
> > |> registration fee paid.  This will occur with the passage of this
> > |> motion.  The domain name would then qualify this organization to
> > |> membership in the NCDNHC and resolve that issue.
> > |>
> > |> This motion will REQUIRE an amendment to paragraph 5 in order to
> > |> designate the third member of the initial committee
> > |>
> > |> Any seconds?
> > |>
> > |> This is the perfect time to address this issue.  And might
> > |> I say that
> > |> it is the most productive time to address it.
> > |>
> > |> --
> > |> Best regards,
> > |> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > |> Userfriendly.com Domains
> > |> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> > |> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> > |>
> > |> _______________________________________________
> > |> Idno-discuss mailing list
> > |> Idno-discuss@idno.org
> > |> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
> > |>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idno-discuss mailing list
> > Idno-discuss@idno.org
> > http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
>
> --
>
>
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> Part I:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
>
>