Re: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"
Erica and all assembly members,
> While a lot of useful discussion has been held on the need for some sort of
> individuals constituency, in order for the NC to be able to go beyond some
> vague form of 'in principle support', it would be helpful for the GA to
> develop a concrete proposal which deals with the key issues which have
> recently been under discussion on this list:
> Constituency Name;
> Constituency Objective (mission)
Any constituency's Mission(s) may change from time to time and event
to event or issue to issue. Any real constituency may have multiple missions
> Membership (who is -and is not- eligible);
For and individual constituency, ANYONE would be eligible...
> Funding and organisation.
Organization may be varied and could change from time to time, naturally.
Funding is up to the Constituency members.
> I think we need to develop a document which sets out the skeleton for a new
> constituency and around which consensus can be built.
I disagree with respect to a Individuals Constituency. I also see this as
being a vehicle for divisiveness that is both unproductive and unnecessary.
An Individuals Constituency a in line with the ICANN Bylaws should
be self declared and self forming...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joop Teernstra" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:54 PM
> Subject: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"
> > Some of you may get this twice, but I did not get this posting back from
> > the list after 24 hours, so I post again.
> > At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > >Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which
> > >the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with information
> > >the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On receipt I will
> > >this for discussion with the task force.
> > The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in
> > the form of a presentation.
> > I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation,
> > for the Chair's benefit.
> > Rationale for the Individuals' Constituency: To represent the
> > Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the
> > regulated.
> > We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
> > The Internet *is* about Individuals.
> > The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain
> > Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to
> > accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.
> > Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal
> > They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.
> > Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not
> > have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.
> > The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best
> > illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 65 (corrected) FOR and 3
> > AGAINST.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html