RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:31 7/01/01 +0100, Jefsey wrote:

>Last point. From my knowledge of the IDNO: the IDNO is more an @large 
>organization which should actively support and participate into the @large 
>movement. What will probably remain DNSO/GA/IDNH is a pole of competences 
>and interest. IDNO should one way or another unite millions of idnowners.
>
I'm sorry Jefsey, but the IDNO was not set up as an a @large org. It came
into existence long before ICANN had any @large members. It is clear enough
from the website www.idno.org that it was specifically intended to be the
framework for a DNSO constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners.

All the debates dealing with such representation and the best possible
models that guard against capture by opposing interests have been
extensively debated.
It makes good sense to take the lessons learnt on board. 


--
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