Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> In exchange for the constituency pie slices, we also received this:
> "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in
> constituencies for which they qualify." (See,
> http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html). At the time, I was
> extraordinarily pleased.
>
> This phrase, "Individual domain name holders should be able to
> participate in constituencies for which they qualify," should have meant
> that individual domain holders with commercial sites could participate in
> the commercial constituency, non-commercial sites in the NCDNHC, etc. And
> individuals with trademark rights in a domain name should have been able
> to participate in the trademark constituency (but the ICANN Board thought
> otherwise).
The ICIIU's proposal for the NCDNHC includes individual
non-commercial domain name holders. We only agreed to their
exclusion from the NCDNHC as a compromise with ACM and ISOC in the
Berlin negotiations, and on the understanding that they would be
given their own constituency.
Since the ICIIU and its supporters - the only legitmate
non-commercial domain name holders involved in the NCDNHC formation
- have been pushed out of our constituency by the ISOC/CORE
usurpers, the ICIIU no longer has any reason for compromising with
ACM and ISOC and therefore reaffirms its original constituency
guidelines.
The NCDNHC (that is, the rightful NCDNHC) welcomes individual
non-commercial domain name holders, and makes common cause with IDNO
and the constituency-less, disenfranchised stakeholders who are
being thrown into the powerless General Assembly.
