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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> There has been in the past support from the GA to the idea of 
> Constituency for individuals, and I believe that the reasons for ICANN 
> not to follow up on the question were more linked to the lack of a 
> unified proposal (and no possibility at that time to put together one in
>  a short time) than a clear "no".
> 
> There are, it is true, some ICANN Directors that opposed this project, 
> as we have even heard directly in Cairo, but OTOH maybe we should put 
> together a proposal for consideration.
> 
> Of course, only if there is a sufficient number of interested 
> individuals.

One must consider "sufficient number" in comparison with the 16,000 who
have signed up for icann atlarge membership.  One must also consider
that from the perspective of representation, the atlarge membership of
ICANN controls half the board seats.  This is far more
power/representation than *any* constituency of the DNSO.  There is a
real and legitimate concern that the atlarge membership already tilts
the representation equation far to the side of individuals. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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