Re[2]: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

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

Hello Sandy,

Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 8:58:52 PM, you wrote:
>> What especially lacks in the current "constituency" lineup is
>> representation of the Holders of Domain Names *as such* . ..

>> If this constituency will not be rudely outvoted in the NC, it can help the
>> DNSO to recommend more balanced DN policies to the ICANN Board.
>> 
> Yes.

> Then there are the end users, everyone who uses DNS, many without knowing
> it is there. Organisations like EFF or GLIC that work for network civil
> rights, and might claim to represent users' interests, have a far better
> claim to ICANN representation than "IP" lawyers ever will.

Joop is so fixated on trying to turn his failed IDNO effort into a
constituency that he fails to see the bigger picture.  He thinks that
making his group a constituency in the DNSO will be the panacea to
solve the problems in the DNSO.

This is a fallacy.  As Harold already pointed out so well, and your
own statements seem to back up, the constituency structure has
inherent flaws, and no single constituency being recognized
(regardless of the lack of merit of the one being discussed in
specific by Joop) will solve those problems and fix the system.

I agree there needs to be more representation, I also agree with
Harald, Karl Auerbach, and yourself that the constituency structure is
not the best way to achieve that.

-- 
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