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

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Hi Patrick and Kristy,

thanks for forwarding this!

> 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?

A pause is fine -- if the IDNO issue really is
solved, I am all for it.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> ----- 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.)
>>
>>