RE: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

They were never equally weighted, because policy development roles were
reserved for the SO's. This excluded the general membership.

If the SO.s 'represent expertise (professional part)' and users are to be in
the general membership, then why do trademark lobbyists have a constituency
in the DNSO?

D Schutt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 11:23 AM
To: karl@CaveBear.com; skritch@home.com
Cc: Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr; baf@fausett.com; wg-d@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly -
Revised Agenda


>
> > I'll once again politely point out that Javier stated, "the NC
represents
> > the Internet Community proportionally".  I do not take issue with the
> > particular wording of this statement, but the entire statement.  The
> > NC does not represent the individual stakeholder, or the individual
user.
>
> And even if the non-commercial constituency and individual domain name
> owner constituencies are recognized, there is still no constituency for
> the most important, and largest part of the internet at all, the ultimate
> source of all the money, the group that trademark law is designed to
> protect: the users of the internet.
>
> And even if they had their constituency, the commercial to non-commercial
> balance of the DNSO would exceed a two to one dominance.
>
> 		--karl--
>
==> Do we forget "At large" ICANN Board directors ?
    ICANN Board is made by two equal groups, each of 9
    directors, one from Supporting Organizations,
    another from "At large".

    One moment or another it was assumed that Supporting Organizations
    represent expertise (professional part), and "At large"
    shall represent all users, the slicing being intended to have
    both weighted equally. Is it no longer true ?

    Elisabeth