The analogy is not apt. The criteria for participation in a
Republican Convention is membership in the Republican party; the
criteria for participation in the IDNO is (or should be) ownership of
an individual domain. I am not, therefore, a member of an "opposing
party", and, if you review my postings, they have *not* been
disruptive, abusive, or insulting. Furthermore, if this list has any
charter at all, it is to discuss the political structure of the IDNO,
and therefore, my posts are exactly on topic.
[...]
> If such a group is burdened with so drastically
> opposing views from within from the start, its chances of
> ever forming a real and viable "party" are greatly minimized.
Indeed. But the name of the game is to produce a DNSO constituency,
not a "party", and it is ICANN which sets down the rules for
acceptance as a constituency. I doubt very much that ICANN is
interested in a constituency for "Individual Domain Name Owners who
can get along with Joop Teenstra", which is what IDNO is.
> (This may or may not be the reason for some of our infighting
> today!) I suggest that IDNO go into a major re-organization with a
> core of people who share a core of beliefs and goals. These people
> should put together a platform like any other party and then seek
> those who wish to support this platform.
Go right ahead. Such a group has no business being a DNSO
constituency, however -- a constituency is required to be
representative of the class it claims to represent, not just some
homogeneous subset of that class. If it is clear to ICANN that
there are unrepresented members of the class, obviously it cannot be
accepted as a constituency claiming to represent that class.
So, by all means, try to start a "friends of Joop" constituency.
Maybe ICANN will accept it on that basis. But not on the basis that
it represents "Individual Domain Owners", because it certainly does
not.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain