> Just to be sure you understand:
>
> Someone can make thoughtful comments that you disagree with.
> Someone can make considered comments that you disagree with.
> Someone can present such comments in a manner likely to lead to
> productive debate and perhaps a polite and agreeable compromise.
Hmmm. I guess this is some sort of "instruction" that you're giving me, eh,
Kent? It's been a long time since I was instructed in how to behave. At the
age of fifty-five, it's a little unusual to be receiving instruction,
especially from someone about fifteen years my junior, less well-educated
than myself, less experienced in the world, and whose comments on these
lists don't reflect any particularly noteworthy intelligence or
perspicacity.
But I suppose your position as - what? the "editor" of the DNSO.org drafts?
- puts you in a position to be instructing others in how to read the
obnoxious proposals of the ICC. Thanks for your help. Now I see clearly that
the ICC's exclusion of individuals, including myself, from their DNSO is a
thoughtful and considered comment likely to lead to productive debate and a
polite and agreeable compromise. Is that right, Kent?
Fine. Then I won't protest further. I merely present the following:
ICIIU Proposal for Membership Criteria in the DNSO
DNSO membership is open to any person who is the registrant of a second
level domain name under the generic TLDs, or of a third level domain name
under the ccTLDs where second level domains are generic; or any person
directly delegated to represent such a person.
I think that's a thoughtful and considered comment likely to lead to
productive debate and a polite and agreeable compromise, too. Don't you?
Please add it to the DNSO merger draft. Thanks.