Re[2]: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Dave,

Saturday, May 27, 2000, 7:40:29 AM, you wrote:

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

DC> This statement suggests goes down the path that leads to claiming that 
DC> there is a constituency for every label, category or type that can be 
DC> imagined.  While the academic exercise of looking for discernible labels 
DC> might be interesting, it is not a useful way to find and create meaningful 
DC> constituency categories.  The practise should be to first understand what 
DC> differences motivate a category.


Sorry, Dave, but the DNSO has already set a precedent for this.  After
all we have both a Business/Commercial Constituency, and a
Trademark/IP Constituency, which greatly overlap, with one being
nothing more than a subset of the other.

DC> So now you profess to know the nature and practise of the combines psyches
DC> of ICANN board members?  That's going just a bit far, don't you think?

History speaks for itself, Dave.  The ICANN Board has a clear bias
against an individual's constituency. This is well known and
documented.

>>IDNO proposal, for all its faults, never got formally considered.  David

DC> There was nothing to consider.  It was a group entirely without relevant 
DC> content.

On this, we agree. But like ICANN did with other constituency
proposals, it could have taken the proposal and come up with its own
charter for such a constituency.  It didn't.

It should have.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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