Jay Fenello a �crit:
>
> At 1/31/99, 08:20 AM, Diane Cabell wrote:
> >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.
Quite right. I think we've all learned that it's wisest not to trust too
much to the future, and to secure what's possible when we can. Making the
DNSO fully representative is a top priority. The more so since the question
of incorporation has not been resolved.
BTW, from the way the discussions on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list are
going, it looks like the ICANN at-large membership may end up organized by
geographical subdivision, according to the RIR or ISOC models, and will
thereby may become manipulable by the RIRs or ISOC. That is what has been
prepared for by ICANN's bylaws, and people like Joop Teernstra and myself,
who don't want to see that happen, are not winning the argumentson that
list.
Let's make sure the DNSO has an open, all-inclusive, free-to-act membership.
> >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 ;-)
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
