[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Individual representation
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:17:46 -0700, Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 10:31:11PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>> >>> if the academic institution is non-commercial, why would they not wish to
>> >>> join the non-commercial constituency?
>> If the trademark community is commercial, why would they not wish to join
>> the business constituency? This in no way implies that owners of trade and
>> service marks would be disenfranchised.
>If the registrars and registries are businesses, why don't they
>join the business etc etc
>The constituencies/GA/AL/SOs are designed to address what were viewed
>as coherent interests that should be represented. This is not a
>mathematical structure, it is a human structure, and "should be
>represented" was defined mainly through the influence of the loudest
>voices. You as another loud voice want to add yet more. It won't
>make things any better.
The initial constituencies were also not intended to be the "end all"
of "coherent interests."
The point of all this is that just because a group can meet the
requirements to join a constituency doesn't mean they share the same
"coherent interest" with that constituency, and hence they should
examine forming a new constituency, which is what the ICANN provisions
specifically call for.
You seem to think the idea of new constituencies is anathema. This
can only be explained because it might actually lead to a balanced
Names Council, which the current one is NOT.
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.