Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #479
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 20 2001             Volume 01 : Number 479

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:16:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion - Small and Medium e-Entreprise Constituency - Acknowldegement for a Study

I move the following motion to the Chair:
"
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
support for the acknowledgement of the need for a Small and
Memdium e-Enteprises Constituency by the ICANN Board in
accordance with its Bylaws. The General Assembly of the
DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board that, to foster the
study and the preparation of such an Small and Medium
e-Business constituency, it places an approval in principle on
its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm plennary session.

Agree/Disagree
" 

- --
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, 20 May 2001 14:21:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

On Sun, 20 May 2001, at 05:22 [=GMT-0500], Bruce James wrote:

> Agree

I agree too.

Marc Schneiders

> 
> /Bruce
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: May 20, 2001 03:46
> Subject: RE: [ga] Amended Ballot
> 
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of babybows.com
> |> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:58 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot
> |>
> |>
> |> The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
> |> The ballot is accordingly amended.
> |>
> |> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> |> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
> constituency of
> |> Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with
> its
> |> Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> that
> |> it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or the
> |> "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> plenary session.
> |>
> |> Agree/Disagree
> 
> Agree
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- --
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, 20 May 2001 14:30:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for a Study

After the approval of plan B by the Doc leading to a M$ 200
development effort on the DNS, after various propositions of
multi-bind solutions, after the entrance of the market of several
plug-ins of which the purpose if to modify the user's string
sent to the DNS, after the different official studies engaged
in order to review the DNS (including the NAS current study
on White House request), after the annoucement or the
public knowlegde of plans of several private galaxies, IMHO
it becomes advisable that the BoD stays abreast in matter
of independent politcial, commercial, technical trends and
initiatives in matter of DNS evolution and helps a development
coordinated with the SSRAC and the CRADA,

I therefore move the following motion to the Chair:

"
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
support for the acknowledgement of the need for an DNS
Developper Constituency by the ICANN Board in accordance
with its Bylaws. The General Assembly of the DNSO
recommends to the ICANN Board that to foster the study and
the preparation of such an Individual User Constituency it
places an approval in principle on its agenda for a decision
at the Stockholm plennary session.

Agree/Disagree
" 

- --
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, 20 May 2001 14:44:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for a Study

With he approval by the iCANN of the .biz and .info TLDs,
the negotiation of the other TLDs approved at the MDR
meetng, the annoucement that pending applications
would be reconsidered at later stage and that new TLDs
will be registered in the future, it becomes necessary to
provide a proper constituency to these TLDs and to the
projects of new TLDs, so they may work together with
the iCANN common recommended practices, share
experience in the best common interest, keep informed
the BoD on the market eveolution, etc...

I therefore move the following motion to the Chair:

"
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express
its support for the acknowledgement of the need for an
global TLD Constituency by the ICANN Board. Such a
constituency will welcome all the non country code TLDs
and shall be formed in changing the name of the 'gTLD
Constituency' into  'TLD Constituency' and in modifying
the bylaw for this constituency to accept as Members
the new and candidate TLDs. The General Assembly of
the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board places the
decision to change such a name and to call for a review
of the resulting change to be brought to the ByLaws on its
agenda for a decision at the Stockholm plennary session.

Agree/Disagree
" 

- --
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, 20 May 2001 09:03:59 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

interesting logic here...

it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this up for
all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have a DN.

what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential members)

i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out" far
enough to be truly "representative"

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

> Dear Joop,
> I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
> There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
> My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
> of the DNS future.
>
> Your motion should read:
> "
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
> for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
> Constiuency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.
> The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> that it place either the creation of such an Individuals Domain Name
> Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for
> a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.
>
> Agree/Disagree
> "
>
> Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
> Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
> confused they will not vote.
>
>
> Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
> maters. Interested parties are:
>
> - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
>     concerned parties):
>
>     - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
>     - organizations with their own name servers: commercial and
>       non commercial
>     - intersections with the DN name space: IP, multilingual,
>       freedom rights,
>
> - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:
>
>     - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
>     - hosted sites: individual DN holders
>     - decision makers: BIND developpers (not yet),
>       Individual Users (they decide of the future of the DNS
>       through the way the want/demand to use it.
>
> 2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
>      need taken into account) nor a market (people we want to
>      best serve) organization. It is purely DNS oriented.
>
>      The groups of concerns present in the DNSO have many
>      other issues to deal with than the DNS. So they may
>      organize in many different structures, ML, associations,
>      etc...
>
>      If we take the case of the individual domain name holders.
>      We have progressively agreed at the WG-Review that
>
>      -  holders was a restrictive word acknowledging that the
>         holder does not actually own the DN.
>
>      -  owner was a legitimate name to use by organizations
>         (IDNO is not the only one) to show that such organizations
>         also consider what the holder actually owns *in addition*:
>         commercial image, pages and software of the site,
>         DN protection/insurrance shemes he may subscribe to,
>         etc...
>
> 3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
>      Individual Users. These people (us all) decide of the DNS
>      far more than any other existing DNSO Member.
>
>      The demonstration is New.net. The question is simple:
>      no one has a real need for the iCANN, but having the
>      iCANN helps us all. This means that the iCANN must
>      be both product (what is possible) and market (us) oriented
>      or that Individual Users will progressively change the
>      Internet into an OpenNet without the iCANN.
>
> 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
>
>

- --
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, 20 May 2001 10:08:33 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Amended Ballot

Agreed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot
> 
> 
> The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend 
> his motion.
> The ballot is accordingly amended.
> 
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its 
> support for the
> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a 
> constituency of
> Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in 
> accordance with its
> Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the 
> ICANN Board that
> it place either the creation of such an Individuals' 
> Constituency or the
> "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> plenary session.
> 
> Agree/Disagree
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
- --
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, 20 May 2001 12:24:38 -0500
From: "Kevin M. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Amended Ballot

Agree

Regards,
Kevin

<!--
Kevin M. Kelly, Ph.D.
Kelly Webworks & the University of Iowa
Learn more at http://www.KMKelly.net.
See the sites at http://www.KellyWebworks.com!
Have you established http://www.Your-Internet-Presence.com?
- -->

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
>babybows.com
>Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 00:58
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot
>
>
>The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
>The ballot is accordingly amended.
>
>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of
>Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with its
>Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board that
>it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or the
>"approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
>plenary session.
>
>Agree/Disagree
>
>
>--
>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
>
- --
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, 20 May 2001 11:08:28 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

- --------------4FB3BC0C5360548EADBD0C86
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On this one I have to side with Ken Stubbs. Those who own domain names
and those who do not have different issues, and Joop's distinction between
the two should be preserved.  I've also lobbied for adequate representation
for "mere users," but I don't think that's really a DNSO function -- that's
what the "DN" means. (To repeat the obvious, until a body that specifically
represents individual users is set up, any user can jump in on any list at
any time and speak out.)

I've also suggested that the word "constituency" presents some problems in
terms of international understanding, and I floated a balloon that proposed
we simply designate who the people are, e.g., Registrars, Domain Name
Holders, and so on.  However, today I saw the term "center of interest"
being used, and I like it. Subtle efforts to improve communications with the
entirety of the Internet community should be carried out, and this could be
one of them. That's an "outreach" in itself, and shows that whatever else
may be the case, in a proper bottom up mode the GA is trying to do the
best it can; rumor has it that not everyone is doing that. :-)

Leaping yet further into the fray, I suggest that if that new TLD organization
(sorry, guys -- I'm not a TLD owner so I skipped past the actual name) can
send all of us on the ga list an announcement of their formation and an
invitation to join (if qualified), we in the DNSO/ga fold could do the same,
somehow, to people around the world who own domain names. Now that
would be outreach to the nth! (And pity the poor soul who would have to
do it -- searching everyone's WHOIS and all that.)

Bill Lovell

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> interesting logic here...
>
> it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this up for
> all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have a DN.
>
> what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential members)
>
> i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
> understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out" far
> enough to be truly "representative"
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
>
> > Dear Joop,
> > I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
> > There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
> > My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
> > of the DNS future.
> >
> > Your motion should read:
> > "
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
> > for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
> > Constiuency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> > that it place either the creation of such an Individuals Domain Name
> > Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for
> > a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.
> >
> > Agree/Disagree
> > "
> >
> > Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
> > Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
> > confused they will not vote.
> >
> >
> > Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
> > maters. Interested parties are:
> >
> > - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
> >     concerned parties):
> >
> >     - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
> >     - organizations with their own name servers: commercial and
> >       non commercial
> >     - intersections with the DN name space: IP, multilingual,
> >       freedom rights,
> >
> > - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:
> >
> >     - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
> >     - hosted sites: individual DN holders
> >     - decision makers: BIND developpers (not yet),
> >       Individual Users (they decide of the future of the DNS
> >       through the way the want/demand to use it.
> >
> > 2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
> >      need taken into account) nor a market (people we want to
> >      best serve) organization. It is purely DNS oriented.
> >
> >      The groups of concerns present in the DNSO have many
> >      other issues to deal with than the DNS. So they may
> >      organize in many different structures, ML, associations,
> >      etc...
> >
> >      If we take the case of the individual domain name holders.
> >      We have progressively agreed at the WG-Review that
> >
> >      -  holders was a restrictive word acknowledging that the
> >         holder does not actually own the DN.
> >
> >      -  owner was a legitimate name to use by organizations
> >         (IDNO is not the only one) to show that such organizations
> >         also consider what the holder actually owns *in addition*:
> >         commercial image, pages and software of the site,
> >         DN protection/insurrance shemes he may subscribe to,
> >         etc...
> >
> > 3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
> >      Individual Users. These people (us all) decide of the DNS
> >      far more than any other existing DNSO Member.
> >
> >      The demonstration is New.net. The question is simple:
> >      no one has a real need for the iCANN, but having the
> >      iCANN helps us all. This means that the iCANN must
> >      be both product (what is possible) and market (us) oriented
> >      or that Individual Users will progressively change the
> >      Internet into an OpenNet without the iCANN.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

- --------------4FB3BC0C5360548EADBD0C86
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
On this one I have to side with Ken Stubbs. Those who own domain names
<br>and those who do not have different issues, and Joop's distinction
between
<br>the two should be preserved.&nbsp; I've also lobbied for adequate representation
<br>for "mere users," but I don't think that's really a DNSO function --
that's
<br>what the "DN" means. (To repeat the obvious, until a body that specifically
<br>represents individual <i>users </i>is set up, any user can jump in
on any list at
<br>any time and speak out.)
<p>I've also suggested that the word "constituency" presents some problems
in
<br>terms of international understanding, and I floated a balloon that
proposed
<br>we simply designate who the people are, e.g., Registrars, Domain Name
<br>Holders, and so on.&nbsp; However, today I saw the term "center of
interest"
<br>being used, and I like it. Subtle efforts to improve communications
with the
<br>entirety of the Internet community should be carried out, and this
could be
<br>one of them. That's an "outreach" in itself, and shows that whatever
else
<br>may be the case, in a proper bottom up mode the GA is trying to do
the
<br>best it can; rumor has it that not everyone is doing that. :-)
<p>Leaping yet further into the fray, I suggest that if that new TLD organization
<br>(sorry, guys -- I'm not a TLD owner so I skipped past the actual name)
can
<br>send all of us on the ga list an announcement of their formation and
an
<br>invitation to join (if qualified), we in the DNSO/ga fold could do
the same,
<br>somehow, to people around the world who own domain names. Now <i>that</i>
<br>would be outreach to the nth! (And pity the poor soul who would have
to
<br>do it -- searching everyone's WHOIS and all that.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Ken Stubbs wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>interesting logic here...
<p>it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this
up for
<br>all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have
a DN.
<p>what an outreach potential &amp; problem..... (400,000,000 potential
members)
<p>i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
<br>understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out"
far
<br>enough to be truly "representative"
<p>ken stubbs
<p>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: "Jefsey Morfin" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>To: &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 AM
<br>Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
<p>> Dear Joop,
<br>> I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
<br>> There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
<br>> My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
<br>> of the DNS future.
<br>>
<br>> Your motion should read:
<br>> "
<br>> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
<br>> for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
<br>> Constiuency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.
<br>> The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
<br>> that it place either the creation of such an Individuals Domain Name
<br>> Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda
for
<br>> a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.
<br>>
<br>> Agree/Disagree
<br>> "
<br>>
<br>> Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
<br>> Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
<br>> confused they will not vote.
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
<br>> maters. Interested parties are:
<br>>
<br>> - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; concerned parties):
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - organizations with their own name servers:
commercial and
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; non commercial
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - intersections with the DN name space: IP,
multilingual,
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; freedom rights,
<br>>
<br>> - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - hosted sites: individual DN holders
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - decision makers: BIND developpers (not
yet),
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Individual Users (they decide
of the future of the DNS
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; through the way the want/demand
to use it.
<br>>
<br>> 2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; need taken into account) nor a market
(people we want to
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; best serve) organization. It is purely
DNS oriented.
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The groups of concerns present in the
DNSO have many
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; other issues to deal with than the
DNS. So they may
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; organize in many different structures,
ML, associations,
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; etc...
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If we take the case of the individual
domain name holders.
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We have progressively agreed at the
WG-Review that
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; holders was a restrictive word
acknowledging that the
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; holder does not actually
own the DN.
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; owner was a legitimate name
to use by organizations
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (IDNO is not the
only one) to show that such organizations
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; also consider what
the holder actually owns *in addition*:
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; commercial image,
pages and software of the site,
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DN protection/insurrance
shemes he may subscribe to,
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; etc...
<br>>
<br>> 3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Individual Users. These people (us
all) decide of the DNS
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; far more than any other existing DNSO
Member.
<br>>
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The demonstration is New.net. The question
is simple:
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; no one has a real need for the iCANN,
but having the
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; iCANN helps us all. This means that
the iCANN must
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be both product (what is possible)
and market (us) oriented
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or that Individual Users will progressively
change the
<br>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Internet into an OpenNet without the
iCANN.
<br>>
<br>> Jefsey
<br>>
<br>> --
<br>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>> Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>
<br>>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------4FB3BC0C5360548EADBD0C86--

- --
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, 20 May 2001 14:18:55 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

I agree, Chris.  Individual DN holders and users fall into different 
categories.  I also feel that small business falls within an IDNHC.

Leah

On 20 May 2001, at 6:39, NameCritic wrote:

> Personally I disagree, but will support it if most wish to go this route.
> To me an IC is not the same as an IDNHC. I think both should petition for
> inclusion as seperate constituencies. One requires you own a domain name
> and the other does not.
> 
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
> 
> 
> > Danny and all assembly members,
> >
> >  Agree.
> >
> > babybows.com wrote:
> >
> > > The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his
> > > motion. The ballot is accordingly amended.
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> > > the immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
> constituency of
> > > Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with
> its
> > > Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> that
> > > it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or
> > > the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at the
> > > Stockholm plenary session.
> > >
> > > Agree/Disagree
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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, 20 May 2001 11:43:27 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

Concur.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> I agree, Chris.  Individual DN holders and users fall into different
> categories.  I also feel that small business falls within an IDNHC.
>
> Leah
>
> On 20 May 2001, at 6:39, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Personally I disagree, but will support it if most wish to go this route.
> > To me an IC is not the same as an IDNHC. I think both should petition for
> > inclusion as seperate constituencies. One requires you own a domain name
> > and the other does not.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
> >
> >
> > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >  Agree.
> > >
> > > babybows.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his
> > > > motion. The ballot is accordingly amended.
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> > > > the immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
> > constituency of
> > > > Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with
> > its
> > > > Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board
> > that
> > > > it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or
> > > > the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at the
> > > > Stockholm plenary session.
> > > >
> > > > Agree/Disagree
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 20 May 2001 11:50:10 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - Individual User Constituency - Acknowldegement for  aStudy

Disagree, since I think that users represent an ICANN-wide issue
that does not fall specifically into the DNSO function.  Of course,
this quibble might not make the slightest difference -- it will end
up on the Board table no matter who initially proposed it -- and
"any group" (or words to that effect) can do that.  But still, the GA
has a whole lot on its plate right now, and cannot simultaneously
be Don Quixote for everything.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I move the following motion to the Chair:
>
> "
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
> support for the acknowledgement of the need for an Individual
> Users Constituency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its
> Bylaws. The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to
> the ICANN Board that to foster the study and the preparation
> of such an Individual User Constituency it places an approval
> in principle on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> plennary session.
>
> Agree/Disagree
> "
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 #479
************************