[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705
At 18:36 23/06/1999 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>2. Currently, there is no way for new constituencies to form, short of
>begging the ICANN Board. The current brouhaha over an individual name
>owner's constituency wouldn't be an issue, because Joop Teernstra would be
>forced to go around trying to collect signatures (in other words, trying to
>build a constituency), instead of spending his time playing god with his
Begging the ICANN Board is one method, which leads indeed to the
unfortunate results that Anthony indicated. (BTW, nobody has been removed
from the IDNO mailing list for more than 24 hours)
Asking this DNSO GA to discuss the matter and vote on it is another.
I have offered the use of my Polling Booth before.
I am offering it again.
The questions up for discussion are: Should there be a constituency for
Individual Domain Name holders as legitimate part of the DNSO? Should the
DNSO recommend to the ICANN Board that such a constituency be admitted?.
We have heard some arguments against. (1.Individuals who do not want to be
classified, cannot be a group. 2. Individuals will get their representation
in the AL membership ) The fact that these Individuals own Domain Names
refutes both these arguments.
Are there any more arguments?
Anybody who would wish to speak *for* an IDNO constituency? Roberto? Demi?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners