[IFWP] Re: [IDNO:420] Re: GA as IDNO

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:44:12 -0700


On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> And, as I've pointed out before, the notion that the IDNO is obviated
> by membership in the General Assembly is a false notion.
>
> Constituencies in the DNSO have significant powers that are different and
> distinct from the powers of the DNSO General Assembly.

True, but irrelevant. What the respective powers are is completely
independent of whether one takes precedence over another in the ICANN
structure. If the ICANN board decides that individual representation
is sufficiently achieved through the direct ICANN membership, then
the GA does "obviate" the IDNO -- the GA is an allowed construct;
the IDNO is not.

In any case, I don't know why you are saying all this, because it has
little to do with what I said. I said that individuals could be
represented in a MODIFIED GA, one with powers more similar to a
constituency.

[Rhetoric deleted -- sounds like you are running for office.]

> It is little wonder that support for ICANN is fading.

Actually, I think that support for ICANN is growing.

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