RE: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Roberto,

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto.gaetano@voila.fr]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:11 PM

> Now, IMHO, the situation has radically changed. The GA 
> repeatedly votes 
> "for" a new Constituency. My personal opinion is, though, 
> that we have 
> to move forward from the proposals that were made more than a 
> year ago. 
> This means that new groups have to join the debate, and the 
> "movement" 
> has to grow. In particular, we have to show that there is a growing 
> interest in having this constituency, and I don't see this happening: 
> the only group that is active is IDNO.
> We need to have, for instance, the consumers joining forces.
> Another possibility is to get some of the new people, that 
> joined ICANN 
> for the AtLarge elections, involved in the DNSO, where they 
> can play a 
> role, bring new ideas, in other words, allow us to move forward.

What you describe here is a marketing problem. One that, as you imply,
is beyond the scope of the IDNO. This would fall squarely within the
realm of the ICANN BoD and they have done NOTHING in this direction. The
AtLarge experiment was a fiasco. My Junior Engineers could have pulled
that one off better. If ICANN/DNSO/NC wants consumers et al. involved
then they will have to wage the marketing campaign and not the IDNO.
Otherwise, all they have is the IDNO, for better or for worse. Now if,
for some reason, /ICANN/DNSO/NC doesn't want to recognise IDNO, even
when they are the only one, then there had better be a valid reason,
IMHO. To imply that the IDNO be responsible for this marketing effort is
a burden that no other existing constituency has had to put up with.
Simply, the IDNO won't.
--
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