At 04:46 PM 20/07/1999 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>
>> Ellen Rony wrote:
>>
>> >Economies don't vote. Individuals do.
>> >
>> >MAC presented ICANN with an unworkable solution--a membership too grand
and
>> >vague to be authenticated without great cost.
>> >
>> >ICANN is tasked to administer names and addresses. Its stakeholders are
>> >those who have names and addresses or provide infrastructure and services
>> >related to same. In order to have an IP address or register a domain
name,
>> >one must have access to computer hardware and connectivity. Those who can
>> >afford such access most likely can afford a nominal membership fee. Those
>> >who cannot, probably likewise do not care about these complex, convoluted
>> >technical issues.
>
><snip>
>
>> This was also the concept of my model for NewCo membership.
>> I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN
>> membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders.
>
>Do you, Joop? Then why didn't you support the ICIIU criterion for
>DNSO membership (reproduced below) when it was proposed, instead of
>opposing it as you did? Was it because you wanted to split the user
>opposition to ICANN, so that you could take away potential
>supporters of the ICIIU and form your IDNO? Now that you've done
>that, you claim the ICIIU's proposals as your own. Is that honest?
>
Michael,
My model for ICANN membership was ancient, published on the old DADNO
website and forwarded to the membership discussion list.
It did not win the day in the MAC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Proposal:
>
>DNSO membership is open to any person who is the registrant of a
>second level domain name under the generic TLDs, or of a third level
>domain name under a ccTLD whose second level domains are generic; or
>any person directly delegated to represent such a person.
>
When did I oppose that? Is that not the formulation of the Paris Draft,
that I supported?
Anyway, Ellen was talking about ICANN membership, not DNSO membership.
Your other conclusion are entirely yours. You know why I called for the
formation of the IDNO, immediately after Singapore.
I felt the ICIIU had an anti-commercial bias and would not be the place
where Individual Domain Name owners (who do not care to be classified
commercial or non-commercial, because they are hybrid producer-consumers)
could find a home.
There is , and there should be, a place for both non-commercial
organizations and Individuals DN owners in the DNSO.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
