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

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:10:21 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>  There IS a constituency for individuals-
>  
>  it is the At-Large!

Which the BoD has tried to eliminate
>  
>  and it now holds 5 seats on the ICANN Board.

Which may not matter after the "Study" of the At-Large, which study may
include disolution or other removal of the At-Large-Memebership as a factor
in ICANN.

>  
>  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
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/