RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

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

> From: Kent Crispin : Sunday, September 24, 2000 8:48 PM
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 04:22:39PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
> > >     representation problem  
> > 
> > And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?
> 
> The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.

Minor nit; the GA existed BEFORE the AtLarge. How can it possibly have
been intended to duplicate the AtLarge? 
Major bitch: The GA has no visible role. No power, no role, verstanden
sie?

> > The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
> > small subset of those effected by such policy,
> 
> Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are 
> registered by
> commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?

Yes. MHSC is not respresented in ANY constituency. Please explain where
it is. Personally, I am not represented either, yet another major bitch.

> > and as such, should not
> > be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
> > DNSO, including election of the board members.
> 
> The atlarge board members are intended to address that issue.

HAH! Would this be those same AtLarge board members that won their seats
due to incompetent election process, where fewer that 50% or the
registered AtLarge even had the ability to vote? (I'm being kind in not
calling it "rigged")

> > If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
> > over with.
> 
> It is just silly to claim that the NC only represents IP interests.

You offer what evidence that this is "just silly"?

> > >     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view
> > 
> > The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
> > are beholden to the IP interests.
> 
> Nonsense.  IP interests have significant influence, no doubt 
> about it. 
> But 5 of the 7 constituencies -- the registries, registrars, ISPs, and
> non-commercial -- are not by any means under the "control" of IP
> interests. 

Boy, you must score really well in telepathy. ... so sure of yourself,
aren't you?
--
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