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

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

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> (Which raises a question: I've had the domain cerebalaw.com for
> quite a few years now, in support of my law practice as an individual.
> I'm about to enter into a Limited Liability Corporation with two other
> patent attorneys, for which we have registered the domain name
> aljpatents.com, and a lot of the stuff from the former is likely to show
> up in the latter. Does that throw me into the "corporate" category? I
> don't think so.)
>

Yeah and when I go to Sockholm and sometimes attend because our clients are ccTLDs,
and sometimes because we really are an ISP but mostly through the GA because I am
just a loser I mean user - then what am I?
(I am reminded of watching in court when attorneys make or should I say try to make
"special" appearances, it is like they want to be there but not be there.)

Remember all that stuff about conflict of interest regarding Corliss, shoot that is
easy compared to the schizophrenia I suffer from ;>} I think we are really designed
to have a readily dynamic constituency structure, a GA and an At-Large, because we
wear different hats at different times.

Sincerely,

>
> Good piece of work by all three parties.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> 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

--
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