RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Partitioning of interests

[Andrew Moulden <Andrew@FoolStop.com>]

Peter,

This is a DNSO working group! I would refer you to 
http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm

Notwithstanding the need for any new constituencies to self-organize, my 
contention is simply that if we do not attempt to answer the second part of 
the NC's question, then we should not be surprised if they fail to 
appreciate the need broadly agreed in this WG.

Andrew Moulden


At 10:10 02/01/01 -0400, you wrote:
>There IS a constituency for individuals-
>
>it is the At-Large!
>
>and it now holds 5 seats on the ICANN Board.
>
>Peter de Blanc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>Behalf Of Andrew Moulden
>Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:37 AM
>To: wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Partitioning of interests
>
>
>It's high time I stopped lurking!
>
>Firstly, I would wholeheartedly endorse Michael Sondow's thoughtful
>critique of Jonathan Weinberg's article.
>
>I wish to raise the issue of "partitioning" of interests. The existing
>constituencies barely overlap, but I am concerned that the proposed IDNHC
>must be seen as occupying a distinct place between the NCDNHC and IPC. The
>second part of the NC's question has not been addressed: "Should there be a
>constituency for individuals, and if so, how should its membership be
>constituted?"
>
>Andrew Moulden