Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

[Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>]

Joop Teernstra writes:
 > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
 > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
 > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
 > >references to this organization.
 > >
 > 
 > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
 > This is why I speak of an IC.

I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.

I can support a motion which talks in principle about an individual
domain name holders constituency as an abstract concept divorced from
the so-called IDNO.

 > However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
 > considerans.
 > The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.

The history of the so-called IDNO is *exactly* the reason why the
concept of an individual domain name holders constituency has gone
nowhere for so long.  We *must* leave this history behind, exactly as if
it had never happened in order to move forward.

/Joe
--
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