The rules for being a member of the registrar constituency are to be
a registrar. I don't meet that definition, so I can't participate in
the registrar constituency. Anyone who does meet that definition
can rightfully *demand* to participate, whether they think the
constituency is a good idea or not.
The rules for the individual domain name owners constituency, should
it be formed, are that the member have a registered individual
domain. I do meet that criteria, and therefore I can demand to
participate.
The requirement that a constituency allow admission to anyone who
meets the criteria for that constituency comes from ICANN; it's not
something that you have any choice about, if you want to be a
constituency.
> Put up or shut up. Your disruptive behavior is unacceptable.
*My* disruptive behavior? I note that people get very excited and
angry no matter what I say, but I am being very careful to be polite,
honest, straightforward, and cool. If my mere presence causes people
to lose it, I can't do anything about it (though it gives me a
strange and gloomy feeling of power). Nor is it reason to bar me
from participating.
> BTW, I tried to join. I was told Registrar members only were
> permitted.
Of course. You don't meet the membership criteria for the registrar
constituency. However, I *do* meet the criteria for membership in
IDNO. Agreeing with its goals is *not* one of the criteria for
membership; nor can it be. Let me rephrase that more accurately:
You can make the IDNO a private club, and blackball people you don't
like. But if you do, then you won't be a constituency of the DNSO.
You will just be a private club.
> So if you would like to join the IDNO and support its goals of
> recognition, you are more than welcome.
I can join the IDNO and *not* support its goals of recognition.
That's the nature of the game.
Furthermore, your attacks on me undermine the credibility of the
whole effort: regardless of whether I support the goals of the IDNO,
you, and others, are obviously doing everything possible to make it
extremely unpleasant for me to be here. That is hardly the mark of
an "open, transparent, democratic" body.
In other words, to quote Roeland (whose deliberate and direct
attempts to insult me are far worse than anything I have said -- but
I'm not complaining -- he's making my case far better than I can at
this point), "you've got to walk the talk".
> Otherwise, you have no leg to
> stand on with your argument below.
Whatever.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain