Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 12 August 1999, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:


>> 
>> > I'll once again politely point out that Javier stated, "the NC represents
>> > the Internet Community proportionally".  I do not take issue with the
>> > particular wording of this statement, but the entire statement.  The
>> > NC does not represent the individual stakeholder, or the individual user.
>> 
>> And even if the non-commercial constituency and individual domain name
>> owner constituencies are recognized, there is still no constituency for
>> the most important, and largest part of the internet at all, the ultimate
>> source of all the money, the group that trademark law is designed to
>> protect: the users of the internet.
>> 
>> And even if they had their constituency, the commercial to non-commercial
>> balance of the DNSO would exceed a two to one dominance.
>> 
>> 		--karl--
>> 
>==> Do we forget "At large" ICANN Board directors ?
>    ICANN Board is made by two equal groups, each of 9
>    directors, one from Supporting Organizations,
>    another from "At large".
>
>    One moment or another it was assumed that Supporting Organizations
>    represent expertise (professional part), and "At large"
>    shall represent all users, the slicing being intended to have 
>    both weighted equally. Is it no longer true ?

1)  There are no At Large ICANN Board members, and the ICANN BoD has made
    no effort to change that.

2)  The body in question here is the Names Council, not the ICANN BoD.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org