Yes you are mistaken Bret. The very reference by definition
of the
current "Constituencies" are in and of themselves exclusionary
to one degree or another or in some fashion of another. This
is
the very nature of what a "Constituency" is, for heavens sake!!
And as such it is exactly why the use of a constituency model
as part of the DNSO is flawed. WAKE UP!!
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
ICANN's "Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts"
Statement contains a provision which reads: "Individual domain name
holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they
qualify."Depending on the decisions ICANN makes in approving competing
constituency applications, individual domain name holders may be present
in *none* of the seven original constituencies. There is at least one
proposal in each of the seven constituency areas (including, oddly
enough, the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holder category) that adopts an
organizations-centric model in which individuals either do not qualify or
are placed in a minority position.I had the impression following the Singapore meeting that ICANN had sent
a clear message that individual domain name holders were important
stakeholders in this process and should be included in certain of the
DNSO's constituency activities. I certainly didn't read "...for which
they qualify" as an invitation to draft exclusive constituency proposals.
Was I mistaken?-- Bret
For reference, ICANN's "DNSO Formation Concepts" is at:
http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.htmlLinks to current constituency drafts are at:
http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208