Re: [ga] Joop's motions

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
>user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
>then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
>and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
>There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
>the military), but perhaps there should be -- I correspond
>with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
>is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
>interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
>proper issue for the GA.

As a user, I will not buy the principle that the DNSO is only for people
that have a direct professional involvement. Users as well have interests at
stake, and can add a useful point of view.

It was not my intent to suggest that the DNSO was only for people that
have a direct professional involvement, if I interpret what you say
correctly.  A number of my clients have domain names and web pages
on which they are "hawking their goods," so to speak, and I would not
classify them as "having a direct professional involvement" in any
of the
professional aspects of Internet operation. They have domain names,
which automatically gives them an interest in everything the DNSO does.
> As a user I am damn interested, for instance, if
> there is a single root or
> multiple roots. I am also damn interested in the way rules are set
> for
> Registries and Registrars, because those rules will ultimately affect
> me and
> my ability to eventually become a Domain Name owner or not.
And me, too -- not as a domain name holder but as a user. So long as one
distinguishes domain names from the technical aspects of roots,
however,
it seems that would be a PSO issue (?) and not one for the DNSO at
all.
This suggests that the user needs something broader than some subset
within the DNSO, and presumably that's what the "At Large" bit is good
for, but today's hours don't allow me to get into that can of worms.
> I would not recommend, for the time being, to create
> a separate SO for
> users, but to encourage the users that may feel the interest to participate
> in the existing ones.
And I agree. (And/or the At-Large. ???)

Bill Lovell