Re: [wg-review] Constituencies (and the disingenuousness of certain people)

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:
 
> i feel that an individual constituancy is a
> good idea and have expressed that opinion on numerous occasions. i only am
> concerned that the constituancy is "inclusive enough"

This is the same lame excuse that has been used for the past two
years to delay the formation of one of the most badly needed missing
constituencies.  Where was Mr. Stubbs' great concern about
"inclusiveness" when the ISP constituency was formed, or the NCDNHC,
or the Business Constituency, none of which includes even one
hundredth of the stakeholders in its area?

For that matter, when has he or anyone else from CORE ever been
concerned that the DNSO as a whole is the most blatently uninclusive
Internet body that ever pretended to make policy for the Internet?

The truth is the exact opposite of what Mr. Stubbs pretends. What he
is concerned about is that, with the acceptance of an IDNHC, there
might finally be a modicum of inclusiveness in the DNSO and ICANN.
This is his great fear, because it could sound the death-knell of
CORE and ISOC's control of the Internet governance process.

M.S.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html