Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 28 Aug 2001, at 17:09, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
> 
<snip>

 Why argue on the criteria
> for the creation of a Constituency within this DNSO when the
> alternative can be a role in a different SO?
> 
> I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO
> obsolesce the request for an IDNH Constituency?

Absolutely NOT, Roberto.  The IDNHC is a critical component of 
the DNSO, while the at-large is an all-encompassing group that 
includes all users of the internet and those concerned with all 
aspects, not just domain names.

In the domain names arena, the individuals are the ones totally 
unrepresented - have no voice and no meaningful input.  I sincerely 
hope you will not further pervert the intent of the white paper by 
supporting the notion that the at-large become a part of the DNSO 
and leave the other critically important aspects of ICANN with no 
representation from the greater community.

They are, in fact, two very separate bodies.

Leah

> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ Get
> your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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