Re: [wg-review] IDNH/O versus @LARGE

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I find the following statement to be accurate but not strongly worded enough
to be directly precautionary.  This working groups' product was never intended
in any way to allow interpretation of its' mandate to mean dilution of
representation of Individual domain name owner/holders.

It is the clear mandate, that within the existing structure, Individual Domain
Name Holder/Owners are to be given a much larger role in all facets of ICANN.

Sincerely

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> ICANN has three roles - IP address allocation, disputes over protocol
> parameter allocations, and DNS policy.
>
> The at-large covers all three roles.  And the at large is open to
> everyone, including everyone from people who don't own domain names to
> CEO's of multinational mega-corporations.
>
> A DNSO's constituency for individuals who own domain names only covers
> only DNS matters.
>
> If one is willing to say that the at-large absorbs the need for a DNSO
> constituency for individual domain name owners, then it is equally true
> that the at-large absorbs the need for DNSO constituencies for businesses,
> intellectual property interests, registries, ane registrars.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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

--
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