Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

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

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

        Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.

        I think Bill Lovell is referring to
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
no role" argument.

Jon

Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to -- thank you
for digging it out):

> But I don't see "individual"as a "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial
>        registrants" or "non-commercial registrant".

I believe that is what I said he said: essentially, individuals had no function and
thus needed no representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical
functions, since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
"function" in that sense  (i.e., in the same way that individuals had no function).
So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may have intended.

Bill Lovell