[ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Here are my personal views.

Individuals do not belong in the NCDHC. My interests as an individual
academic are at times radically different from the institutional interests
of my non-commercial academic employer.  

On Sat, 27 May 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> How does the GA-list see the question of participation of individuals to
>  the DNSO?
> 
> In particular, what will be the role of individuals that do not belong 
> to any constituency?
> 

Currently they are under-represented.  I don't see the at large election
making any effort to privilege the un-represented class in nominations or
voting, so I expect this will continue.  

> Should there be a difference in Individual Domain Name Holders and plain
>  Users of the Net?

Their interests are similar but not identical.  I'd like to hear more on
this subject.

> Note that the current policy of the NCDNHC is not to accept as members 
> individuals that have a Domain Name and even a Web site if they only use
>  it for personal/family purposes, not under the "umbrella" of an 
> official Organization (I guess that it is the effort of avoiding abuses,
>  like big bosses of commercial companies getting voting rights a holders
>  of a family Web site).
> 

Although this policy excludes me, I believe it to be sound.

> What is the relationship possible between the Individuals active in the 
> DNSO and the ICANN AtLarge Membership?
> 

Individuals probably require their own constituency in the DNSO.   Perhaps
one for each region? ;>

> Should the Individuals (only Domain Name Holders, or every individual 
> Netizen?) form a Constituency, or just operate in the DNSO General 
> Assembly?
> 

At some point it will be appropriate to suggest that the GA is a failed
experiment.  I am willing to give it another three to six months, tops.
 
> Should this issue be discussed further, and brought to Yokohama (or 
> anyhow to ICANN's attention)?
> 

It's clear that ICANN will not act on what it doesn't want to see.  The
IDNO proposal, for all its faults, never got formally considered.  David
Post and I wrote a letter about an important aspect of the UDRP requesting
Board attention which was ignored.  Not much point going to ICANN unless
staff gatekeepers tell you they favor the plan or you have a Board member
who will push very hard.


-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html