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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Dear Amadeu,
Excuse me for butting in here, but I think you are needed on the GA list to
clarify a possible misunderstanding related to your position on Individuals
that is causing some confusion.

Regards,
Joanna

on 10/14/01 12:41 PM, Jonathan Weinberg at weinberg@mail.msen.com wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
> individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
> (just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
> argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
> should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
> about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
> line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
> "users" is one that should be represented.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

--
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