It's a stretch that I'm willing to make. Especially since the alternative
is voluntarily oblivion in the ICANN structure.
> So it's just dandy to toss around a theoretical requirement, and quite
> another to deal with real-world constraints.
Real world constraint -- ICANN has rejected individuals.
Theory -- that ICANN will let some other group of individuals in.
I'll pick the real world answer of a concrete organization that we are
creating in the IDNO.
> >How in the world are we to "focus on growing the organization" when the
> >ICANN board has rejected our even the most basic form of our
> >participation?
>
> To use an exemplar with which you are familiar, that is like asking to have
> an IETF working group formed before demonstrating a constituency of
> participation and before writing a real working group charter.
I refuse to hold the IETF up as a model.
Nor do I agree that IETF charters are any more complete than what we have
done in the IDNO so far.
> This is a group that has tiny membership
"tiny"? It's bigger than the entire IESG, bigger than all real IETF
working groups.
It's only small because it is relatively new. And yet it has more actual
members than any other constituency or proposed constituency of the DNSO.
> specification of its rules and goals
Those will develop and firm-up as we self-organize. Indeed the IDNO is
vastly further along in an electorial system than any other part of ICANN.
Certainly ICANN's board itself is not providing a model of adherence to
its fundamental charter. We're doing a much better job than they are.
--karl--
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/