[ga-full] Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 01-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 01:46:33PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> [...]
>> They are not represented in the constituencies on the NC, because the
>> interim ICANN Board so far  has refused to consider their petition to be
>> recognized as a constituency.
> 
> You are confusing your "cyberspace association/IDNO" with "individual
> domain name owners" in general.  Individual domain name owners, as a
> potential constituency, have not presented a petition to ICANN.  Your
> organization does not credibly represent individual domain name owners.
> 

This is the same Cyberspace association/IDNO that only gets any work done at
all when they are goaded into it.  Back in november/december I stopped posting
almost altogether to see if they could make any progress without being
antagonized into making it, and all forward progress pretty much
stopped...until I antagonized them into it.  Same thing happened in January of
this year, when everything came to a stop, only when public criticisms of the
IDNO were being made on other forums did Joop try and get everyone back on
track and doing some semblance of "work."    

For the last two weeks or more the IDNO has been having the same kind of lul in
activity.  Their primary antagonists stopped goading them, and they stopped
producing.

Joop is only using the IDNO to have a platform he can claim to speak for and
give his comments more credit than they deserve.  As for forming a real
organization, he only goes through the motions for that when he is pressed to
do so by outside influences.

There is no reason to take the IDNO work seriously.  The IDNO cannot claim to
be a working constituency.  An IDNO made an rather appropriate post about this

http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2000-March/000687.html

It contains a proposal for coming up with a real constituency proposal for
domain name owners.    One that actually has real merits, unlike the IDNO.  It
involves preparing a real proposal, and submiting it for public comment and
review on this list and on other forums, and for getting feedback from ICANN.

I know of at least one active founder of the IDNO who has picked up the ball
and started doing something for this type of a structure, so perhaps there is
hope for a real constituency out of all this mess anyway.

(Joop, I've saved you the the time of resending my message here to the IDNO
along with your usual editorial preface by bcc'ing the IDNO list on this
message.)

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE45WPh8zLmV94Pz+IRAtOMAJ9mqyN61WPZu7MtVWXUPD/9SryCrQCg+WE6
RV7mvPc8fDI5SIYG+lEeclA=
=tzqK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html