<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)
Joop Teernstra writes:
> On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
> >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO. Please remove all
> >references to this organization.
> >
>
> The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA.
> This is why I speak of an IC.
I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.
I can support a motion which talks in principle about an individual
domain name holders constituency as an abstract concept divorced from
the so-called IDNO.
> However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
> considerans.
> The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.
The history of the so-called IDNO is *exactly* the reason why the
concept of an individual domain name holders constituency has gone
nowhere for so long. We *must* leave this history behind, exactly as if
it had never happened in order to move forward.
/Joe
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|