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

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

On 15:33 8/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
>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.
>
If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
the motion is better off without your "support".

>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.
>
Oh sure. We can debate an "abstract concept" for another year.
But there are  real people out there who want to be represented.


> > 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.
>
That would be Stalinistically  convenient for those who stand exposed by
this history. 
Sorry, but the nature of the Internet no longer allows us such convenience.




--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://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