Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> I second David's proposal to include this summary in the report. However, I
> would suggest we replace  "an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency
> ..." with  "an Individual Domain Name Owners/ Holders Constituency .... " so
> as to elicit as much support as possible from both factions.
> Joanna Lane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of DPF
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:37 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
> TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
> 
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:47:17 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> >The @large is
> >1. an unorganized jumble of all Internet users' diverse interests.
> >2. without Charter or Mission statement
> >3. without means of the members to contact each other
> >4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the Board or do
> >away with it altogether
> >5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests directly
> >opposed to typical DN holders' interests.
> >6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff.
> >7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board
> >
> >An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is:
> >
> >1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in
> >control of its own Charter and destiny
> >2. part of the DNSO where Domain  Name Policy initiatives are developed
> >3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of the
> >policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board)
> >via its own elected officers
> >4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be considerably
> >more legitimate than it is now.
> 
> I think Joop has done a brilliant summary here and would suggest that
> the above be included in any report if there is widespread agreement
> with it.
> 
> DPF

Since support for the proposal seems to exist, and, since the statement
indicates no faith in the administration of the "At Large" thingy, why
not propose, or, move for, the creation of a constituency for
individuals, if not one for individuals all inclusive, and, not
requiring the criterion of owning/holding a domain name, instead of the
individual name owners' constituency, then, a separate,and, additional
constituency, of individuals who do not have domain names, with that
constituency having equal say with all the other constituencies?

People who lack domain names, are still affected (as I was), by the
policies, and, all who support the above proposal, in its entirety, are
(I believe) agreeing that individuals who do not have domain names,
while they have a legitimate interest, are, at present, unrepresented.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
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