Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #146
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 11 2000          Volume 01 : Number 146

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 09:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
> >representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
> >represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
> >
> 
> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
> constituency.  

   I'm not well versed on the details on this, but isn't the main thing
to get the DNSO and ICANN to agree that the DNSO must same *some*
constituency that gives individual DN a voice?  Or is this more about
the IDNO application?  Jamie

- -------------
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, Voice 1.202.387.8030  Fax 1.202.234.5176     

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:32:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Hello Joop,

Sunday, September 10, 2000, 1:05:54 AM, you wrote:

> At 21:35 8/09/00 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
>>representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
>>represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
>>

> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
> constituency.  

Wrong again.  The IDNO is an organization. Not a constituency.

>>The matter of IDNO internal difficulties is nothing as simple as "dissent" 
>>but, rather, sustained management strife and instability, coupled with a 
>>complete lack of any constructive activities that pertain to the interests 
>>of the purported constituency.
>>

> "sustained management strife" is easy to create. Just one psychotic or paid
> individual can do it.

But this wasn't want it took for the IDNO to have it.  It took
prolonged dictorial control asserted by one person, and for a group of
(not just one) founding members who, over a period of weeks, grew more
and more frustrated with this type of dictorial control and finally
decided to do something about it.

> a Completed Charter (www.idno.org/organiz.htm)

Shall we get into the history of this "Charter" Joop?  I'd be happy to
expose the facts about the "IDNO Charter process" if anyone really
believes it.

>  , a functioning Polling Facility

Which only gets used when and if you agree with the issues being
presented or you are 95% certain that the position you agree with will
prevail.  This is a matter of FACT, and indeed of your own admission.

> a website that details what has been done

In your revisionist history and biased manner. It is by far NOT
accurate as to the actual facts and events that have occured over the
past year.  You have done everything you can to paint that as a one
man effort to sabotage the IDNO, and everyone knows that is not the
case.

> , lists all members, all

Lists their names, but no contact details.  This means that the
membership cannot be verified, AND that YOU are the only one who has
those details, and the ONLY one who can contact the membership in any
fashion, and only for those reasons that you agree with.  This was one
of the strangleholds you held over the IDNO to prevent anything from
happening that you disagreed with, regardless of the opinion against
you.

> financial details, etc.
> The representational structure is there, accountability is there,
> transparency is there.
> What more do you want? 

Representational???  Accountability??? Transparency??

Joop, you must return for more schooling to learn what those terms
really mean, because if you are saying those exist in the IDNO, then
you are either grossly mistaken as to their meaning, taking the new
meaning of those words from the ICANN dictionary, or being
intentionally deceptive.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:36:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Hello James,

Sunday, September 10, 2000, 6:12:51 AM, you wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
>> >representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
>> >represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
>> >
>> 
>> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
>> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
>> constituency.  

>    I'm not well versed on the details on this, but isn't the main thing
> to get the DNSO and ICANN to agree that the DNSO must same *some*
> constituency that gives individual DN a voice?  Or is this more about
> the IDNO application?  Jamie

Joop believes that only he and the organization that follows only his
thoughts on the concept of the individual domain owners constituency
can possibly be the true representative of individual's rights.

Joop had a chance a while back to set aside all the differences with
those who saw through his IDNO games, and to instead work towards a
common ground effort to design a real constituency model that would
satisfy both the ICANN and DNSO, but Joop could not bring himself to
do that, unless the parties involved made public statements that they
were wrong about Joop and that Joop was right all along, and that he
basically got his way on how the constituency should be structured
(this is all fact, the IDNO archives have it all).

Joop is in this more for  his personal glory than he is to accomplish
the real goal here, and he always has.  I don't know if you were in
Santiago, Jamie, but Joop never talked about what the IDNO wanted, it
was always what HE wanted (with the obvious presumption that all
domain owners would want it also or that he saw in their best
interests even if they didn't agree), and this fact was not lost on
many participants.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:29:39 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

At 10:36 AM 9/9/00 -0400, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>I hear your message -- and it is the same one you've delivered for two years.

Having to repeat it is probably more tiresome than having to hear it again.

The problem is that it is repeated in response to repeated efforts at 
claiming the legitimacy of an activity that, long-ago, should have gone away.

Having a constituency that represents individual domain name holders is 
entirely legitimate.  But it needs to represent individual domain name holders.

d/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:45:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

At 09:12 10/09/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
>> >representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
>> >represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
>> >
>> 
>> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
>> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
>> constituency.  
>
>   I'm not well versed on the details on this, but isn't the main thing
>to get the DNSO and ICANN to agree that the DNSO must same *some*
>constituency that gives individual DN a voice?  Or is this more about
>the IDNO application?  Jamie

Jamie,

Mr Crocker specifically attacked the IDNO, so my defence was IDNO specific.
Otherwise, about the main thing, you are right. 
There must be *some* constituency recognized that gives individual DN
holders a voice.
It just happened that the CA/idno was the first group of DN holders to
self-organize and come up with a structure that could be used to represent
*the* individual DN owners in the DNSO, if recognized.

*Who* are currently its members or its bootstrap should be irrelevant. The
number of 200 members is nothing compared to who could be there once ICANN
recognizes the *structure* as valid.

If another organized group comes up with a better structure, I'd join them
immediately.
Until then, we are the petitioners.
We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has been stonewalled
and what in the represenative structure or the membership criteria should
be changed (specifically) in order to gain recognition.

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

I asked asked, off line, what I thought about individual domain name
holders and the DNSO.   This is an issue that has been raised several
times in the NCDNHC.  It is a source of much frustration in the NCDNHC
that there is no place for individuals in the DNSO, and often the NCDNHC
seems to be where people end up. 

Clearly the DNSO policies affect all domain name holders, not just those
in the business, IPC or NCC constituency.  It seems incredibly bad form
to create something like the DNSO with "stakeholder" constituencies, and
then never create any place for ordinary citizens or Internet users to
have a voice.   It sends a signal that the DNSO doesn't represent the
little guy, at all.   

I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
it so difficult?  Is this a case where people are trying to control the
votes on the names council, and want business groups to have a majority?
Or is it just the failure to get the constituency off the ground?   

  Jamie

- -------------
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, Voice 1.202.387.8030  Fax 1.202.234.5176     

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:05:56 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

At 01:45 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has been stonewalled

such constructive presumptions and language have, no doubt, contributed 
greatly to IDNO's success.

d/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:31:51 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 10:59 PM 9/10/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
>I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
>it so difficult?  Is this a case where people are trying to control the
>votes on the names council, and want business groups to have a majority?
>Or is it just the failure to get the constituency off the ground?

the latter.

d/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:46:51 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
> it so difficult?

I believe that most all the DNSO constituencies and the General Assembly
itself have accepted the idea that an individual domain name holders
constituency is needed, and in fact overdue.

Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.

       -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:42:38 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 9:31 pm -0700 9/10/00, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 10:59 PM 9/10/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
>>I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
>>it so difficult?  Is this a case where people are trying to control the
>>votes on the names council, and want business groups to have a majority?
>>Or is it just the failure to get the constituency off the ground?
>
>
>the latter.

That's absolute bullshit David, and you know it.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:05:12 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:46:51PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
> > it so difficult?
> 
> I believe that most all the DNSO constituencies

I don't know that this is true.

> and the General Assembly
> itself have accepted the idea that an individual domain name holders
> constituency is needed, and in fact overdue.

I think there are *many* fundamental issues that have never even been
discussed, much less resolved, regarding an individuals constituency: 0)
the constituency formation process itself; 1) the relationship between
an individual constituency and the atlarge membership; 2) the
relationship between an individual constituency and the ga; 3) the
relationship between an individual constituency and other constituencies
[is someone who is a representative of an organization in another
constituency who owns a domain name excluded from membership in an
individual constituency -- why or why not]; 4) the problems of dealing
with an individual membership [how do you authenticate, how do you deal
with capture etc].

Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency, 
which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders 
constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering 
them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.  
[The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names 
is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in 
housing policy.]

Some time ago I put together a web site on this issue -- see 
http://at-large.org. 

> Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
> do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
> yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.

That is true also.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:54:58 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 22:59 10/09/2000 -0400, James Love wrote:
>Clearly the DNSO policies affect all domain name holders, not just those
>in the business, IPC or NCC constituency.  It seems incredibly bad form
>to create something like the DNSO with "stakeholder" constituencies, and
>then never create any place for ordinary citizens or Internet users to
>have a voice.   It sends a signal that the DNSO doesn't represent the
>little guy, at all.

The DNSO policies affect all Internet users, whether they currently hold a 
domain name or not.
Individual domain name holders (of which I am one) are a special interest 
group - albeit a quite numerous one.

The only DNSO body which allows all Internet users access is the GA.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:50:21 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:06 PM
> 
> At 01:45 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has 
> been stonewalled
> 
> such constructive presumptions and language have, no doubt, 
> contributed greatly to IDNO's success.

More of the usual from D'Crock. Joop is right, when Individual
Constituency was placed in abeyance, in Berlin, Santiago never answered
the question about the delay. Since the IDNO seemed in disarray by the
time of LA and still not together by Yokohama, the question seemed moot.
Rather, ICANN would have it appear that way. However, if they won't
allow the IDNO, why don't they create their own version? 

The longer that ICANN remains silent on this issue, the more certain it
becomes that ICANN doesn't want recognition of individual domain name
owners. The way things are shaping up, they don't want smallish corps
either, as the commercial constituency clearly doesn't represent smaller
members (they need not apply) and even if you are running a registry,
you can't join there unless your name is NSI. Oh yes, if you are not one
of the Big8 ISPs, you might as well forget that one. Oh yes, anyone that
wants to sign the registrar agreement can join the registrars, as long
as CORE will let them (and they pay the entry fee).

Individual domain name holders deserve a fair answer, if ICANN wants to
claim the consensus that they are claiming. It is a false claim unless
individuals are a visible part of the power structure.

Over two years ago, Dec98, I put forward the proposition that the ICANN
saw, in the Paris DNSO draft, the perfect means to divide the ICANN
opposition (lead by the BWG and ORSC, at that time). They removed the
fluidity of that constituency model and created a series of
non-communicating buckets. Tell me that is not what we have today,
please. Pardon me while I chuckle through your explanation.

As regards the IDNO, there is a charter up for ratifacation which I
think is pretty good. At least, it's good enough. No, it isn't perfect,
but I can live with it. This is one step beyond what any other
constituency has completed. Yes, there has been a lot of internal
flame-war, also a step beyond what most constituencies has gone through.
Personally, I think that builds character, on the theory of "that which
does not kill ..." Has it splintered? Not, quite. Has it fractured? Most
certainly. Is it dead? Definitely not. Is there a competing
organization? Look around and you tell me. Has the CA/IDNO learned some
collective lessons? Maybe, only time will tell (personally, I think it
has). Sometimes, building an organization is messy, so is human
birth...that's life...get over it.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:59:33 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:47 PM

> Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem 
> to recall we
> do not yet have a constituency for individuals because 
> individuals have not
> yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.

That is, at best, wild speculation. ICANN simply demurred on the issue
of IDNO petition, in Berlin, and haven't commented much since then. If
there are criteria that ICANN expects constituencies to follow then they
should be published. If a constituency meets that criteria then they
should be recognized or ICANN should explain why the recognition is
withheld. It is indeed that simple. As it is, ICANN simply declined to
recognize any individual DN holders constituency, period, without
comment.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:58:13 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 21:46 10/09/00 -0700, Bret Faucett wrote:
[jamie]
>> I imagine that many would like to fix this.  I certainly would.  Why is
>> it so difficult?
>[bret]
>I believe that most all the DNSO constituencies and the General Assembly
>itself have accepted the idea that an individual domain name holders
>constituency is needed, and in fact overdue.
>
Yes.

>Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
>do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
>yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.
>
Bret,

Until very recently it hadn't self-organized to our own satisfaction
either. :-)

But then, how long did it take the NCDNHC to come up with a charter *after*
it received "preliminary" recognition?
Also, the NCDNHC had its place already carved out in Singapore. The fight
in Berlin and after was about who would dominate its "self-organization".
(not Sondow)

Now the IDNO has a complete Charter and the ICANN Board is invited to
scrutinize it and see if it can stand muster.

I do believe that the ICANN Board could have recognized the particular
difficulties of organizing  a constituency made up of committed individuals
without help from any existing organization.(pointedly the Salzburg Seminar
did not even want to fund our travel costs to the ICANN meetings).
Non-recognition of even the validity of the *concept* has not exactly
helped to bring it together either.

Mr Crocker' s sarcastic implication that we should have bowed and scraped
more, is... disturbing.
If true, it condemns the interim ICANN Board more than we have ever done.

Mr Crispin's observation that this constituency has particular difficulties
in differentiating between "genuine" DN holders' interests and the
interests of already represented constituencies who can easily infiltrate
it, is valid. To his credit, he has refrained from insisting on his membership
In his words: 

>3) the relationship between an individual constituency and other
constituencies
>[is someone who is a representative of an organization in another
>constituency who owns a domain name excluded from membership in an
i>ndividual constituency -- why or why not];

This has been extensively debated within the IDNO and the results are
reflected in the ratified membership rules.  It should indeed also be
debated in the GA, with the other constituencies participating.
Personally, I feel that supporting the mission statement , including the
petition to become a DNSO constituency, together with owning a personal
domain, is always enough to be allowed in as a member. There are some
restrictions on running for elective office, just as there are in the other
constituencies.
But to admit members  in the bootstrap stage that do not support the
mission statement is suicidal for any grouping that tries to self-organize. 
This has been at the root of the problems with the IDNO formation and the
attempts to "wrest control" by individuals who do not support the mission
statement.

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:03:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Kent,
I understand that Dave and you opposed the vote about IDNO representation in
the Yokohama vote. Your post is therefore of great interest. I would like 
to go
through it?

1. The constituencies

First you say (I put your text in my order: you were responding, I am
analyzing. I suppose you will not mind).

 >Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency,
 >which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders
 >constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering
 >them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.
 >The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names
 >is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in
 >housing policy.]
 >Some time ago I put together a web site on this issue -- see
 >http://at-large.org.
 >> Others will remember the history better than I do, but I seem to recall we
 >> do not yet have a constituency for individuals because individuals have not
 >> yet "self-organized" to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.
 >   That is true also.At 07:05 11/09/00, you wrote:

This is of real interest. I will take the comparison with the telephone
(which sometimes will be part of the Internet). Today DNSO is like
the yellow pages, the white page being missing. Two visions are opposed:

- - yours saying all the people calling the Internet should be represented
- - Joop's saying that the small/individual DN owners should be.

I personally feel that you are both right. Jamie correct me if I am
wrong, Joop is interested in people using the Domain Name system
(namely ICANN, NSI, TLDs, registrars, etc..) and Kent is interested in
consumers using the internet which also made by Joop's people.
So there is no opposition but complementarity.

Conclusion both IDNO and ALC should be set-up as constituency.
These two constituencies being to be introduced at the same
period and representing a significant number of person, most
probably share a lot of concerns. They should therefore help
each other to establish.

2. Acceptability of these constituencies

IMHO there is an on going misunderstanding about what ICANN
and therefore DNSO is. The ICANN is a small operation publishing
the master-root and the DNSO is a consulting body to document
the problem it might meet in his endeavor. Obviously Joop and you
want that the IDNO and the ALC do more and take decisions.

This is fine, but this mean that your organizations cannot be part
of the DNSO. However there should be constituency Members of
your organizations would be part of. GA accepted the concept of
an individual domain name owner constituency. If you formally
propose the GA an Internet consumer constituency I will second
it. I suppose it will be accepted.

3. Individuals consistency  IDNO / ALC

You pertinently say:
>I think there are *many* fundamental issues that have never even been
>discussed, much less resolved, regarding an individuals constituency:

The best I think would be to have a permanent WG on new constituency
creation. This might well be a way to reach consensus about
constituencies. If they turn out being more numerous and to cover all
the issues as they are uncovered, this may lead the GA to be a real
common place and answer the concerns of every one? If the
consistencies were to be mended or suppressed this WG would be
the ideal place to work out a good solution based on the acquired
experience.

>0) the constituency formation process itself;

This is obviously the first question to address for a WG on
Constituency Management.

>1) the relationship between an individual constituency and the
>atlarge membership;

There would certainly be common audiences. But - as long as
the DNSO is consultative and the @large part of the executive
there should not be problem.

>2) the relationship between an individual constituency and the ga;

Very important. The yellow page may be 10% of the telephone
owners and 5% of the telephone users. On the other hand
professionals and motivated people are not numerous among
the population. The WG should address that point.

>3) the relationship between an individual constituency and other 
>constituencies
>[is someone who is a representative of an organization in another
>constituency who owns a domain name excluded from membership in an
>individual constituency -- why or why not];

IMHO the people should be allowed to participate in as many
consistencies it qualifies for but to have only one vote at GA.
Again the DNSO role is to consult not to decide, it is about not
to waste competence. Being competent in one field does not prevent
to be competent in other fields.

>4) the problems of dealing with an individual membership [how do you
>authenticate, how do you deal with capture etc].

This is up to the WG to work this out. The same rules should
apply all through the DNSO. The ICANN failure at the PINs
should help to standardize ICANN wide solutions?

May be, Joop or other see other important points to add to this
list which would apply both to IDNO and ALC. I see one myself
which is are language, formation and glossary. Uniting small owners
and consumers will unit people not necessarily having a basic
international English or an in deep vision of the network or a rather
different vision of the nets (If I judge by my own grown daughters
and my wife).

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:50:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

Hello Joop,

Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:58:13 AM, you wrote:

> But to admit members  in the bootstrap stage that do not support the
> mission statement is suicidal for any grouping that tries to self-organize. 
> This has been at the root of the problems with the IDNO formation and the
> attempts to "wrest control" by individuals who do not support the mission
> statement.

Just for the record, this was Joop's catchall argument for getting rid
of anyone who did not agree with him.  It had nothing to do with the
"mission statement" but was his way of keeping a stranglehold on the
IDNO, and he will continue to do that.

In his mind, anyone who disagree with his positions, disagreed with
the IDNO "mission statement" and was out to sabotage him.

I'll refrain from more detail here.

- --BillW

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:42:23 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

[...]
> Personally I have always been in favor of an "at-large" constituency, 
> which is open to anyone, rather than an individual domain name holders 
> constituency.  While people who just use domain names without registering 
> them don't have as much an obvious stake, they clearly do have a stake.  
> [The claim that only domain name holders have a stake in domain names 
> is no more meaningful than saying that only home owners have a stake in 
> housing policy.]
[...]

There is some sort of a (political, democratic) principle that those who
pay (a special) tax have a say in how the money is spent. In fact I think
democracy somehow started this way historically.

Domain name owners pay ICANN a tax of $0.33 yearly.

Does this mean others, who merely use domains, should have no say? Of
course not. But those who pay the $0.33 should have an extra say, I would
say.

For analogy: All citizins pay a tax to their District Water Board in the
Netherlands. Everyone wants the dykes high and their feet dry in our low
lands. Those who own land or a house pay an additional tax, for they have
an additional interest in what the board does. And they have an additonal
vote for a reserved number of board members. Last time I looked at it,
large land owners still had more votes than small ones, as they pay more
tax and are bigger stakeholders. 

You would think there would not be much interest in these elections, which
is true most of the time for the "all inhabitants" category. (Now often
delegated to local councils to avoid the high costs of the elections.) At
times there is a very lively campaign among the landowners (farmers), e.g.
when there are plans to merge two Boards, one of which is not as expensive
as the other, because it runs land that is higher above the sea. Obviously
the landowners there do not like to pay for the dykes in the other
District.

I am sure there are studies about this, as at least some of these Boards
predate the American Declaration of Independence. Might be interesting
material for those who discuss the structure of ICANN.

- --
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl % 
%* [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [email-masked] *%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #146
************************