Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

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

At 09:12 10/09/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
>> >representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
>> >represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
>> >
>> 
>> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
>> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
>> constituency.  
>
>   I'm not well versed on the details on this, but isn't the main thing
>to get the DNSO and ICANN to agree that the DNSO must same *some*
>constituency that gives individual DN a voice?  Or is this more about
>the IDNO application?  Jamie

Jamie,

Mr Crocker specifically attacked the IDNO, so my defence was IDNO specific.
Otherwise, about the main thing, you are right. 
There must be *some* constituency recognized that gives individual DN
holders a voice.
It just happened that the CA/idno was the first group of DN holders to
self-organize and come up with a structure that could be used to represent
*the* individual DN owners in the DNSO, if recognized.

*Who* are currently its members or its bootstrap should be irrelevant. The
number of 200 members is nothing compared to who could be there once ICANN
recognizes the *structure* as valid.

If another organized group comes up with a better structure, I'd join them
immediately.
Until then, we are the petitioners.
We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has been stonewalled
and what in the represenative structure or the membership criteria should
be changed (specifically) in order to gain recognition.






--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
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