RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 11:37 15/01/01 +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
>2. As commented to Joop and Greg and accepted by Joop, the response
>     of Joop is fully accurate and describes the present status of  the
>     350.000.000 "individual users" (@large) for which the ICANN is investing
>     a very important study to remedy to the risen points.

That is my description of the @large. What the ICANN study is going to
remedy still remains to be seen.

 It is obviousoy not
>     a  defense of the 15.000.000 "individual domain holders". 

It is not a defense of anything. It just describes the difference between
the @large and a DNSO constituency for Individual DN registrants.

This kind of
>     confusion is extremely detrimental to the @large, to the DNSO and to
>     the IDNH cause as informed decision makers only retain the idea that
>     the individual domain name registrants/holders cause is messy. What
>     it is not.

I was trying to bring clarity in the confusion by answering your question.
How  would that be detrimental to the IDNH cause? And how could any such
clarification be detrimental to the still unorganized @large?

If you favour the abolition of all constituencies, then obviously IDNH ers
will be part of a new democratic structure that elects NC representatives.

Or  is there a misunderstanding about that too?



 



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

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