>For example, will there be a committee, and if so, will it submit a report
to the full membership prior
>to Santiago?
We should form a committee on it, no doubt, but we have to settle a few
more basic things about our constituency first.
Membership, membership fees, procedures.
Then we can steam ahead with our position on the WIPO draft.
It is for this very reason, that any haste adopted in the DNSO would be
indecent, as the DNSO itself has not yet been constituted.
But you read what the observers at the latest phone conf had to say..
Better yet, is the Board's endorsement a dead issue, or is this something
that we
>should consider protesting in IDNO's capacity as the representative of the
largest number of domain
>name owners?
>
The Board's endorsement is only partial. The most contentious parts have
been sent to the DNSO.
>Also, is there any agreement as yet as to how the DNSO will tackle this
>subject?
>
LOL! There is no agreement yet as to who is going to be represented in the
DNSO.
>I found Sri's domain name problem description to be very interesting. I
haven't had the opportunity to compare my NSI tiff with his, but I have a
feeling we could find a lot of interesting themes were we to swap notes.
>
The domain-policy@lists.internic.net used to be a good repository for
complaints against NSI's policies.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-- 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/