Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >What part of "individual" don't you understand? ISOC's
> individual members
> >vastly outnumber its commercial ones.
>
> And not a single one of them will be allowed to participate directly in
> the ISOC version of the non-commercial domain name holder constituency.
>
> A rather bizarre result, I think. I am a member of ISOC and support its
> mission (as quoted by Kent in an earlier post). But I honestly cannot
> understand why the organization has drafted the constituency proposal
> that it has. Here was an opportunity to support ICANN by providing
> constituency leadership and technical support for both the non-commercial
> entities and individuals who own domain names, yet ISOC opted to fulfill
> only half of that role.
>
> The constituency model adopted by the commercial-business constituency
> would have been far better. In that constituency, both individual
> companies and corporate organizations can participate side-by-side in the
> same group.
>
> Why did the ISOC draft split that group when it came to the
> non-commercial domain name holder constituency?
>
> The only statement in the ISOC proposal is ISOC's "belief that it is
> impractical to have both individual members and organizations as voting
> members within a constituency...." Please explain. And no sniping
> responses please. I'm serious. Why is ISOC's model better?
>
> -- Bret
>
I've already stated my objection to the ISOC proposal's exclusion of
individuals from the NCDNHC, so I'm not in a position to explain it. IMO,
ICANN should either refuse to recognize any NCDNHC that excludes individuals
or, failing that, add an individual domain name holders' constituency.
The issue in my response to Mr. Sondow was not the substance of the ISOC
proposal (although its definition of "non-commercial" as it relates to
organizations is far more realistic than Michael's), but rather his
contention that ISOC is not qualified to organize or even join the NCDNHC.
