Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Comments below.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC


> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:17:32PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > Constituencies:
> >
> > I suggest that all of the questions you ask about constituencies are
> > irrelevant until the fundamental question is asked and answered:  Should
> > the DNSO have a constituency structure?
>
> That question has already been asked and answered through a very long
> and ardous process, and the answer is before us: we have constituencies,
> and we have them for very good reasons.
>
By who? Who was represented when that question was answered? Just because
that decision was made why do you resist the idea that it may need to be
changed?

> It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the ccTLDs and the
> registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, relationships
> that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, one vote"
> rule.  The exact nature of these unique relationships is debatable, but
> that they exist is not.  These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a
> special place at the table.

Relationships is one word you can use to describe the Registrars interests.
I can think of other words to use but will try to stay nice. Those
"Realationships" have not shown any concern for individual domain holder's
rights and have only served to trample them up til now.
>
> The current constituencies are there because there were people
> who made the case for their existence.  They are ad hoc, but that only
> reflects an underlying reality: the parties that have an interest in
> domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings.

Who are these "People" who made the case? And who were they representing?
Whose interests were not represented once again when these decisions were
made?
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>