RE: Re[3]: [ga-ext]The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

Without getting into the personalities involved I see any motion supported
by the GA as being on if it is seen that an Individuals Constituency should
be encouraged by the ICANN Board.  I oppose having the IDNO associated with
any such motion on the grounds the IDNO brings too many bad associations
into the minds of a number of people who the GA may wish to impress with
the importance of having an Individuals Constituency.  As to the validity
of such bad associations with the IDNO, I do not intend to make any
judgements.  The fact they are present is enough to discount the IDNO as
being viable for inclusion in any push by the GA made on the ICANN Board or
the DNSO.

It may be the GA will wish to present the IDNO as a possible contender for
an Individual Constituency or the GA may wish to recognise another
association.

To me the two issues are distinct however and they should not be jumbled
together.

1. Does the GA wish the DNSO and the ICANN Board to recognise the value in
having an Individual Constituency?

2. Does the GA wish to present any existing association for the role of an
Individual Constituency?

3. Does an association wishing to be an Individual Constituency gain
promotional support from the GA or should they be left to present their own
case to the DNSO and ICANN Board?

As I see it, those are the three current issues with repect to this topic.
They are all distinct and should not be lumped together IMHO.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-ext@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-ext" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html