At 1/31/99, 08:20 AM, Diane Cabell wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>> (....)
>> My question was really the opposite --
>> is there anyone who feels that there
>> should *not* be a public interest
>> constituency?
>>
>> If so, why?
>>
>> Jay.
>>
>
>I haven't been following the DNSO details of late; forgive me if you've
>already covered these points.
>
>Do you think that the ICANN At Large membership will be sufficient to
>serve this purpose?
What at large membership?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNSO
will be formed before any decisions are
made wrt the ICANN membership.
It is very hard to trust that this undefined
ICANN membership will somehow protect all of
the domain name stakeholders now and forever
more.
>Wasn't that the reason for setting it up and giving
>it equal weight on the Board?
That's like arguing that citizens of the
State of Georgia needn't worry about voting
for their state government -- after all, they
are represented at the federal level ;-)
Jay.
>If DNSO has an "at large" constituency as well as ICANN, will that divide
>the at-large pie unnecessarily (if fees are required)? If membership is
>free so that everyone could join both would that give them a double vote?
>Or does "public interest constituency" mean representatives from public
>interest organizations (such as EFF, ACLU, whatever)?
>
>Diane Cabell
>MAC
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
