RE: Re[4]: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

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

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:05 PM
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Monday, September 11, 2000, 2:42:34 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:31 PM
> >> 
> >> Monday, September 11, 2000, 1:13:27 PM, you wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 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.
> >> 
> >> Which is perfectly fine.  The IDNO is not and could not 
> possibly be a
> >> constituency.  It is, at best, an advocacy group.
> 
> > ... and how was this relevant to my point?
> 
> 
> If the IDNO cannot be a constituency, than it does not have to worry
> about any such "burden."

Then it wasn't relevent. My point was that no other constituency has
this burden, yet Roberto implies that the individual domain names
holders constituency, whatever that is, should accept a burden that no
one else has to carry. This is simply unfair.
--
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