Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual Property Constituency

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

It always should have only been one. Having two was just a power move and
should not have been allowed. It is like having a Domain name Owners
Constituency AND A Website Owner's Constituency.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>
To: <ga-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual
Property Constituency


> The history of the DNSO is replete with joint communiqués issued by the
> Business and Intellectual Property Constituency:
>
> 1. BC-IPC Safeguards Precis (Sept.2000)
> 2. Minimum safeguards for the introduction of new TLDs - a joint statement
> from the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (Sept. 2000)
>
> The Business Constituency website routinely posts remarks from the
> Intellectual Property Constituency such as, "IP Constituency Statement on
> Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement".
>
> It is clear to even the most casual observer that the affinity between
these
> two groups is such that we are essentially looking at two sides of the
same
> coin.  A merger of these two constituencies would seem to be indicated.
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html