RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

["McMeikan, Andrew" <andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>]

No I was not confused, just trying to get it stated in a way that would
avoid confusion.

I guess I did not succeed.  I will state my opinions so that hopefully my
position will be clearer.

* I challenge no ones right to do stuff one the net, although I challenge
ICANN for its attempt to limit others rights.

* If there is to be a body like ICANN that does wish to decide what can and
can not be done, then as many that are affected should be represented.

* There are other things on the net than web pages and these need to be
protected just as much.

* I own a domain name with non-commercial content hosted on 'free' web
providers, I want to be in a constituency and be heard.

* there used to be a net before DNS and there will still be one after its
gone.


	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [SMTP:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:31 AM
> To:	GA
> Subject:	RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> holders' constituency (IC)
> 
> Hi Andrew:
> 
> I have realized that you are confused between the At Large and the IC.
> 
> The IC and Individual Domain Names Holders.  The At Large membership are
> any
> Internet user holds or not holds a domain, that are interested in the
> policy
> developing in the subjects of:  Domain Names, IP addresses space and
> Protocols.
> 
> El lun, 07 may 2001, McMeikan, Andrew escribió:
> > I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
> > definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject
> line.
> > 
	<snip>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html