Jay Fenello wrote:
> 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.
Valid point. You could insert a clause saying "in the event that the At Large
membership does not provide representation for, etc.
> It is very hard to trust that this undefined
> ICANN membership will somehow protect all of
> the domain name stakeholders now and forever
> more.
Well, the At Large may have a broader representation than just domain holders,
this is true. But I thought you were asking about the need for a public
interest constituency, not a domain holder constituency (which I assumed,
without research) was a group already included in your list of constituents.
I was suggesting that the At Large membership could represent the public
interest.
> (....)
> 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 ;-)
My error. I thought Georgia was already in the DNSO mix and you were looking
for someone to represent the rest of the 49 in the Georgia House. :-)
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____________________________________________
