[ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

Some of you may get this twice, but I did not get this posting back from 
the list after 24 hours, so I post again.

At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which outlines 
>the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with information on 
>the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On receipt I will table 
>this for discussion with the task force.

The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in 
the form of a presentation.

I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation, 
for the Chair's benefit.

Rationale for  the Individuals' Constituency:  To represent the unrepresented.
Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the 
regulated.

We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
The Internet *is* about Individuals.
The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain 
Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to 
accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.

Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal stake.
They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.

Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not 
have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.

The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 65 (corrected) FOR and 3 
AGAINST.



--
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