RE: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

I am one who supports the possible value of an individual domain name
holders constituency but as I said publicly in Melbourne, I don't believe
that discussing it and passing motions that there should be one will
accomplish much.  That has all happened in the past and look where we are.

If you really want to make this happen, then organize such a constituency
and then you will be able to clearly demonstrate with objective data its
viability, its representativeness, etc.  Neither the NC nor the ICANN board
is going to do this for you and it seems highly unlikely that they will
approve a new constituency without evidence beyond simple rhetoric.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:56 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: [ga]
Subject: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???


Hi William

Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone down
personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.

I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many others
are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:

In favour:
Joop Ternstra
William X. Walsh
Roeland Meyer
Joe Kelsey
Marc Schneiders
Patrick Corliss
Leah Gallegos
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Andrew McMeikan
Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
Eric Dierker
Jeff Williams

Opposed:
nobody


Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting it
to a vote?

Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.

Regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'
constituency (IC)


> Hello Joop,
>
> Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
> > the motion is better off without your "support".
>
> I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
>
> If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
>
> I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> especially at this very important moment.
>
> But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
>
> Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
>
> I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh


--
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
--
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