Constituencies in the DNSO have significant powers that are different and
distinct from the powers of the DNSO General Assembly.
If one believes that membership in the DNSO General Assembly is a
substitute for a Constituency membership, then I suggest that that person,
to be consistant, must also advocate the abolition of the existing set of
Constituencies and the names council.
As is quite obvious to anyone who reads the ICANN by-laws, the DNSO
General Assembly doesn't have the same powers as DNSO Constituencies.
Membership in the DNSO General Assembly is not equivalent to membership in
a DNSO constituency.
It is the height of condescension, exclusion, and discrimination to
suggest that ICANN relegate individual domain name owners to the General
Assembly and prohibit individual domain name owners from having a
constituency.
It is similarly improper to consider the ICANN general assembly as a
substitute for a individual domain name owner constituency in the DNSO.
The powers of each role are quite different and not interchangeable.
It is very sad that ICANN, after nearly 9 months of existance still
has neither general membership nor any other structure in which
individuals who are impacted by ICANN's decisions can have any meaningful
voice.
And yet substantive decisions are being made by ICANN and the DNSO.
It is little wonder that support for ICANN is fading.
--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/