Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDNholders'constituency (IC)

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I dunno,
But I think that the constituencies need to be exclusive like the IP and
registry.  So the individual one would be for non-everything else, so we could
argue that the domain name holders are holding us hostage, that the ccTLD guys
were too restrictive on use, that policies should be in place reducing our use
costs - blah, blah blah. Where as the at-large and the GA would be all inclusive
with differing missions.

The last post over on the ICANN forum on the New TLD agreements says that
European ISP's will stick with the already existing .biz (hooray for them). But
the point is that a general at-large and a strictly
non-domain,IP,ccTLD,registry,non-com would have different perspectives on this
issue.  Therefor they(people) who are not in anyway in the biziness and are just
users should have their own group where we would not bother others.

Thanks for your thoughts.

L Gallegos wrote:

> Eric:
>
> IMO, the at-large is the place for non-domain name holders.  The DNSO
> is the domain name supporting organization and it makes sense that
> there should be an individual domain name holders constituency, if
> there are to be constituencies at all.
>
> Leah
>
> On 7 May 2001, at 7:13, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Now I see the reason this is a non-starter.
> >
> > Domain Name Holder(s) and Individual(s) are two distinct groups.

--
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