Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Sorry this is one of those posts where the tail wags the dog, anything
taken out of context destroys the nature of the contextual truth.

DPF wrote:
 

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:23:20 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<ga_list@hotmail.com> wrote:

>David Farrar wrote:
>
>>Obviously we should look at the proposed role and function of an at
>>large SO to prevent overlap but in no way should we say there is now
>>no need for individual registrants to be represented within the DNSO
>>because of this.
>
>First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO is
>going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it is the
>only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California law"
>potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users), it will
>be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the DNSO.
 

Neither of you men were any help or contribution in the quest for ownership
of the ICANN now you flip terms and switch back and forth on individual
as though you own the domain.  Please act responsibly there are others
relying upon your positions.  Let us here your positions on membership
and ownership.

 
Yep I am aware it will not be easy.

>Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as it is
>today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes, its
>mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS. Whether
>it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally
>do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.
 

You have two problems here bro.  How is it you know what the BoD
thinks???  your slippage of saying vice as opposed to advise does
not go unnoticed.  Why do you bother and how can you represent a dead
body on an assignment you ran for, you are acting hypocritical at best. 
Now I definitely distrust your motives on being on your work as a rep for
the GA.

 
If the DNSO is changed so that it is not the sole source of policy
advice to the Board on domain name issues, then I would agree that the
proposed ALSO could be an adequate replacement for a Registrant's
Constituency.  But if the DNSO remains in its current form then there
is still a need for Registrant's to be represented within the DNSO..

The ALSC seems to have suggested the Business, IP and NC
Constituencies all be dissolved and be made part of an ALSO.  The
remaining constituencies of Registries, Registars and ISPs would no
longer be a DNSO but merely a provider SO.

If the Business, IP and NC constituencies are also removed from the
DNSO then I would totally agree no need for a Registrant's
constituency.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

Nice logic but not one word of political support for users, otherwise
known as dotcommoners within the Internation.  So please provide your
views toward that issue.