At 10:10 PM 20/07/1999 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>>
>> When did I oppose that? Is that not the formulation of the Paris Draft,
>> that I supported?
>
>No, I distinctly recall the ICIIU criterion - that only domain name
>holders become members - was repudiated by all and sundry.
>
>> Anyway, Ellen was talking about ICANN membership, not DNSO membership.
>
>It amounts to the same thing.
Not quite. The DNSO is typically the Domain Name Supporting org.
The ICANN at-large membership is something the ICANN Board is still
agonizing about.
Granting membership to the masses who
>don't pay for a domain name and don't have a website of thier own
>can be used by ICANN as a means of diluting the voice of the domain
>name holders, whether it's the DNSO General Assembly or the ICANN
>At-Large membership.
>
With regards to the at-large membership, my very own words, if you go back
to the MAC archives.
>The ICIIU has no anti-commercial bias.
Then it appears to have changed, which is your privilege as a non-member
organization. So much the better.
It was formed to be a voice
>of all independent users, that is, independent of big business
>interests. The ICIIU website states so clearly. If the ICIIU became
>involved in the NCDNHC, it was because that was the only
>constituency where there was any possibility of having a place and a
>vote in the DNSO.
>
It became involved with an "approved" constituency, which put your effort
in competition with ISOC.
As such it has done a good job of exposing what really went on. I
understand an unelected individual sits currently on the NC representing
the world's ncdnhc.
>In any case, these divisions of the users are pointless, since no
>one definition works, as many have pointed out, and only serve the
>cause of our common opponents, who are quite content to see us
>fighting among ourselves and creating many separate organizations
>instead of banding together in solidarity.
>
This was the anticipated effect of the constituency structure as many of
our members have pointed out.
>> There is , and there should be, a place for both non-commercial
>> organizations and Individuals DN owners in the DNSO.
>
>Well, I really don't care much for people telling me who I am and
>what the ICIIU is. As I say, we only got involved in the NCDNHC
>because there was nowehere else to go. I think you took advantage of
>that situation unfairly, to our detriment, and have continued to
>insist on an opposition between the ICIIU and IDNO which does not
>really exist, an artificial one that you have erected between us. I
>suggest that you reconsider.
>
You and I have often agreed about principles, but not often about methods.
The IDNO welcomes all Individual DN owners Michael. As Individuals. You
qualify just as much as Kent Crispin and I venture that ,unlike him, you
would not object to stating :"I support the principles and mission
statement of the IDNO constituency".
This statement of support is necessitated by the fact that ,as long as we
are not recognized by ICANN, we are as much a political action group (which
needs unity of purpose) as a constituency of DN owners.
<snip>
>P.S. I don't know how Joe Sims' address got into the headers, but
>I've removed it. I don't include Mr. Sims in the list of my
>pen-pals.
>
I mentioned his name, so I copied him the posting. C'est tout.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
