At 08:55 PM 7/13/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>This is one reason why the constituencies seem so unwieldy to me, and the
>arbitrariness of their definition is clear: commercial trademark interests
>get votes both through the tm and commercial constituencies; include
>individuals within non-commercial and they get one set, include them as
>part of an IDNO and they get two. Funny, though: I was there in Singapore
>when it seemed clear that consensus had been built around the
>constituency-based DNSO proposal. At the time it must have seemed like pie
>slices for everyone.
This is not funny at all.
The problem here seems to be that people
involved with ICANN would rather ignore
the history, than acknowledge it.
The problem of overlapping constituency
membership was explicitly addressed in the
Paris draft, and it was one of the most
contentious items discussed in Singapore.
The fact that the board ignored our position,
is only made worse by your flippant remarks.
Where were your comments when this was posted
to the public lists, Jonathan?
Still Upset in Atlanta,
Jay.
At 12:32 AM 4/27/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>Hi Esther,
>
>Frankly, you're right -- I don't have time for this.
>
>But due to the ICANN Board's refusal to understand
>the issue of minority representation, I and others
>feel that we have NO CHOICE but to jump through
>your hoops to have any voice in your sandbox.
>
>As I pointed out at the DNSO meeting and your
>press conference in Singapore, allowing entities
>to participate in multiple constituencies is
>extremely disadvantageous to minority stakeholders.
>
>What could have been one minority constituency
>among seven, is now seven constituencies for the
>majority, and NO VOICE for minorities.
>
>If we are lucky, we will garner enough support
>to have marginal representation in a few
>constituencies. More than likely, we will be
>so diffused, that the minority positions will
>be steamrollered in a most offensive way.
>
>Of course, your refusal to understand why the
>supporters of the Paris draft were so opposed
>to having overlapping constituencies reflects
>a much broader problem -- ICANN does not listen
>to the Internet community!
>
>[This is exactly why some Internet old-timers are
>planning to route around the damage (aka ICANN)!!]
>
>I'm sorry if this does sound hostile, by my
>frustration is showing.
>
>Upset in Atlanta,
>
>Jay.
