Re: [IDNO:412] GA as IDNO

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:03:02 -0700


On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 11:27:59PM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Non-domain name holder individuals have an interest that is far and
> different than domain name holder individuals and should be
> represented differently.

But any non-domain holder can pay $35/year and participate in the
IDNO. The argument has been made that this means that the IDNO has
a broad membership, since $35 is not a big barrier. But this also
means that the IDNO is basically open to anyone. But this means
that the requirement for owning a domain name is superflous, since
it provides no barrier to anyone who is interested. Therefore, the
criteria might as well be "anyone who is interested", and cut out
this unnecessary and artificial extra hurdle. ICANN will rightly
notice that this is an unnecessary and artificial attempt to create
a constituency with essentially the same membership criteria as the
General Assembly, and say "why?".

> Under your argument, ISPs shouldn't have their own consituency, since
> they are businesses and there is a business constituency.

No -- that's under *your* argument. You missed my argument
completely. And yes, this should be discussed at discuss@dnso.org,
and I will bring it up there. However, it seems to me fairly
relevant for this list as well.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain