Kent:
I was in Berlin. You were not.
The two or three speakers who spoke out against NSI having additional seats
were all CORE members. The session is on record, by the way.
It should be noted that all of the Names Council seats from the registry
constituency are from CORE. CORE and NSI are two commercial entities with
an economic interest in the domain name registration business. If NSI
cannot have three seats, then neither should CORE be able to. If it is OK
for one business association to control three seats from a constituency
(and I think it is), then the rule must be applied consistently.
As an institution, ICANN needs to be able to rise above CORE-NSI
factionalism. It has to apply its rules impartially, and develop its
policies in a way that fosters consensus.
Kent Crispin wrote:
> No. It is not. The public opinion I refer to is that expressed
> during the Berlin meeting, where a *number* of speakers stood at the
> mikes and told the Interim Board on no uncertain terms that there was
> no way that NSI should be able to nominate 3 Names Council Members.
> As a result of that strongly expressed public opinion the Board
> amended its original position, which would have given NSI the right
> to pick three Names Council Members. To be blunt, a lot of people
> were simply outraged that NSI should have that much influence on the
> Names Council.
>
> The Board TO ITS CREDIT amended its previous position because of this
> public input.
>
> That is precisely what happened at Berlin. It's a matter of public
> record -- you can watch the real video yourself.
>
> NSI now says it is going to give those extra seats to "worthy
> groups", but it DOESN'T HAVE THOSE SEATS TO GIVE TO ANYONE.
>
> NSI is simply using this as a PR ploy.
>
> These are the facts.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
