Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

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

At 18:35 23/11/98 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:

>(BTW, these lists have got me bamboozled. This is the first message I've
>gotten on any of them
>for quite a while, except for kent's messages about the meeting notes.
>Anyway, wouldn't it be better to post to the "participants" list? There,
>at least, there's some chance of catching a few people who were at the
>meeting. This "discuss" list hasn't kicked off at all, it seems to me.)
> 
Michael and all,

I am surprised to hear you make such a proposal just after lauding the
openness of the DNSO.
Are you suggesting that the "participants" are not bothering to follow the
open list and congregate only on the closed "participants" list?

Those who could not make it to the physical meetings should not be excluded
from further and deeper discussions on an open list.
More so, if "the" DNSO is going to have the credibility of a broad based
organization, it should make sure that the Domain Name registrants are
represented as a specific and important constituency. 
Because the participants in the physical meetings were not representative
of these stakeholders, it did not happen.

It should be recognized that representatives of the "registrants"  group
are less likely to make it to the physical meetings than the registries'
reps. and will be more dependent on the on-line discussion list to make
their voice heard.

If there is anything of general interest said on the "participants" list ,
it should be posted to the open list as well.
Better still, the two lists can be one.
In an Internet world, the distinction in physical and other "participants"
is artificial. 
Many of us know each other already, without ever having met.
I look forward to see most of you at some time at an Asia/Pacific location,
but in the meantime I would like to participate on-line.

With due respect,







Joop Teernstra LL.M.  
Democratic Association of  Domain  Name  Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz