>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["A Gehring"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From open.org!alg Tue Jun 1 02:30:43 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from opengovt.open.org([199.2.104.1]) (5024 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by opengovt.open.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA21788;
> Mon, 31 May 1999 23:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from opengovt165.open.org(199.2.104.165) by opengovt.open.org via smap
>(V2.0)
> id xmaa21779; Mon, 31 May 99 23:14:30 -0700
>Message-ID: <00bb01beac20$83dd4540$a56802c7@gehring-group>
>Reply-To: "A Gehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "A Gehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joop Teernstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO:81] the non-commercial constituency
>Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 21:01:50 -1200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2120.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0
>
>Joop, Michael, Milton, Don, and all,
>
>Individuals and the power-hungry are not mutually exclusive groups.
>
>If the DNSO were to only have one constituency, I could accept none that
>did not place service to and representation of the individual as it's
>central theme. We have now six constituencies, and yet none do center
>their foundations upon the individual.
>
>My suggestion would be to abandon any further efforts to resurrect the
>Non Commercial Domain Name Constituency. Resolve instead to form the
>Individual Domain Owner's Constituency.
>
>Let all individuals resolve their diffused effect into a focused and
>inclusive constituency of the IDNO. Let this become the Seventh
>Constituency of the DNSO and deliver the voice through individuals.
>
>Let These Individuals send their Leaders; be they hungry for power, be
>they hungry for justice, or be they hungry for an opportunity to
>deliver forethought to all, malice toward none, and humble service to
>the entire Internet Community; go now to the ICANN and there demand
>acceptance of the IDNO as the seventh constituency of her DNSO.
>
>Arnold Gehring
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In an Institution where a 'D' is a passing grade: Getting it one
>seventh right is better than getting it all wrong. "I want the Vote."
>
>Sunday, May 30, 1999 10:14 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>><Kent Crispin, who was not there, but observed remotely, had written>
>>
>>>Precisely because Milton Mueller and Michael Sondow insisted on a
>>>structure with the two of them in positions of power. There was no
>>>other reason; that particular point was the last sticking point.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The current DNSO is now mainly a trade organization.
>>>
>>>Thank Milton and Michael.
>>
>>Then Richard wrote:
>>******************
>>I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest so I'll state
>>my observations once and don't care to discuss it. I was in attendance
>>for the NC meeting, as was Esther and John Klemsin. Ask them if
>>my observation is correct.
>>
>>Michael Sondow had the first NC propoasl. The ISOC/Heath proopsal
>>was second and had 30 ISOC/IAHC friendly organizations as signatories.
>>
>>The Mueller/ACM proposal was supposed to be a compromise.
>>
>>I watched Sondow and Mueller make all sorts of compromises I
>>didn't see Heath make any. I talked to him about it and
>>was told "my constituents won't accept this". I asked how
>>he knew this without asking them or explaining the situation.
>>
>>In the end the dispute was about one paraghraph - how to
>>elect the names council memebrs. Heath wanted the 30 orgs
>>he signed up to elect them, many other peple pointed out
>>one names council member from each of the 3 groups invoilved
>>in this seemed reasonable. Heath would not do this, hence
>>more than one NC proposal, hence no NC constituencey at
>>this time.
>>********
>>This is how I experienced it too.
>>I would only like to add that, thanks to the compromise proposal of
>Milton
>>and Kathryn Klein, I was able to be there as a "legitimate
>>gatecrasher" and explain the membership criteria for our IDNO
>constituency.
>>Both the non-commercial proposers were united that there was no place
>in
>>their setup for individuals, who might be sometimes commercially
>active.
>>So, exit the compromise proposal--the IDNO spokesman had to leave the
>room.
>>At least I was able to argue what a bureaucratic nightmare it is going
>to
>>be to determine when a Domain is commercial and when not, in the case
>of
>>Individuals.
>>They didn't seem to mind.
>>
>>At that time they were bickering about who would be on that special
>>interim compromise-making committee (Mueller, Gaetano, Sondow and
>>Heath--much more than a membership committee, really). Don Heath
>wasn't
>>even interested to speak to me. Not then and not later.
>>Clearly the Individuals and the power-hungry are not a good mix.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>>the Cyberspace Association,
>>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
>>
>>[this message was sent via the idno mailing list -- to unsubscribe send
>>a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
