Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

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

On 12:19 2/08/2001 -0700, William S. Lovell said:
>I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
>policy formulation bodies and functions."
>
>Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
>
>Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
>is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
>Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
>
>But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
>now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
>establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
>competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
>both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
>pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.

Not to worry. The CA-IDNO has a democratic mechanism for its members to 
decide if they agree to change the name of the constituency they have 
originally proposed.
The mission statement that Sotiris proposed is close enough to what the CA 
(Cyberspace Association) already has (see www.idno.org/organiz.htm) not to 
cause any confusion.

What the CA now needs to do urgently is to nominate and elect its officers.
Whoever is interested to participate in this process is most welcome to 
subscribe to the newly revived idno-discuss list.
<mailto:idno-discuss-request@idno.org?subject=subscribe>



--Joop

--
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