Ed -- I think you may have misspoken in your reply to Joop. Joop is helping to organize an "Individual Domain Name Owners" constituency. Personally, I know very little about that effort. In your response, however, you mention the "dnso-ip" effort, which is different from what Joop is working on. As one of the dnso-ip participants (and the list administrator), I heartily agree with you that mere list membership is not endorsement of the work discussed on that list. I think list membership reflects the number of people who have had the opportunity to watch the effort and comment and nothing more -- not every list member will be happy with the result. On the dnso-ip list, we've asked people to affirmatively state whether they support the draft dnso-ip application, and I expect that if the group decides to file an application with ICANN next week, we'll list the names of those who have agreed to endorse the proposal. For anyone who is not now a part of the dnso-ip mailing list but would like to discuss the efforts of a few to draft an inclusive trademark constituency, you can join the list by sending an e-mail with the message "subscribe dnso-ip [your e-mail address]" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The draft currently under discussion for the dnso-ip list is online at: http://www.hinternic.net/dnso-ip/proposal.htm For comparison, a draft prepared by various IP organizations is online at: http://www.icann.org/dnso/wellington.html -- Bret >Joop Teernstra wrote: > >> Friends, >> >> All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency, >> actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO. > >Joop: > >Not at all. > >I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be >recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is >done most of the times if not all, not to oppose anything from the past >but to help build something better for the future. To say otherwise is >to misuse their trust. > >It is also misleading to consider mere listserver subscription as "support" >or "opposition" when most of the time people just want to hear what is >happening. > >> Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming >> something that already looks like an organization. >> >> A contradiction? > >No, a sophism. > >> These few dozen founding members are set to become the the little crystal >> dropped in the over-saturated solution. > >This is IMO a gross unwarranted use of those who decided to participate in >dnso-ip -- including but not limited to 34, if that is not all of dnso-ip. > >Unless this attitude is retracted here and now I suggest that anyone in that >group >of 34 (whom you have not named) is signing a blank check for your >endorsement. > >If anyone considers my name in that group of "few dozen .. set to become the >little >crystal", due to my previous messages and this dnso-ip list subscription, >than >such someone is mistaken. > >> They will go out and spread the message. > >No -- how can you say that 34 people are going to follow your agenda, >which has been BTW hidden so far from any public discussion? Do you >realize you are co-opting 34 people -- who, if they remain silent, are just >useless since so controlled? > > >> Every day brings more statements of support as a direct result of their >> evangelism. > >Their -- who? > >> In the end the mass of individuals with their voting rights in the DNSO >> remains. >> >> This is the vision. > >Not mine and that was never said here when dnso-ip started. > >> I urge all Domain Name Owners to support it, including those who will >> participate in the formation of the other constituencies. > >On the contrary, I ask you to please erase this bad start and may it serve as > >an example of what cannot be done. > >Ed Gerck
