RE: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review

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

First, I apologize for adding to the volume of mail which I appreciate is
becoming unmanageable, but if you choose to scan delete to my posts, I
promise not take it personally...:-)

Second, it's very unusual for people to seek out roles they do not feel
qualified to undertake, so I do not agree with Miles (Gene) Marsh that they
would make a technical comment about ICANN without fully understanding the
implications, in which case, it would be entirely appropriate.

Also, the people Gene is now proposing to exclude from DNSO are entitled to
understand the nature and extent of objections to their participation and I
imagine a summary of opposing positions would be included in the report with
respect to possible IDNH constituency formulation (whether this is to fit
into existing constituency structure or yet to be formulated new structure.)

Therefore, I think it would be very helpful if Gene and/or like minded
members would clarify the salient points along the following lines:-

1. Who are the groups of  "real end users"  you would exclude from DNSO?
2. What are the technical qualifications you would introduce as a barrier to
entry to DNSO?
3. Which of ICANN's functions would you say it is appropriate for "real end
users" to comment on?
4. Conversely, which of ICANN's functions would you say it is inappropriate
to "real end users" to comment on?


Joanna