No. The fact that they are different is irrelevant to my argument.
> The fact is that the powers of the two roles are different.
Of course.
> Exclusion from either of the roles results in a diminuation of power.
I wasn't talking about "excluding from roles". I was talking about
"changing the roles".
> That is raw, naked, and unjustified discrimination against individual
> domain name owners in favor of registries, registrars, ISPs, intellectual
> and property interests.
>
> If you want a "modified" general assembly, then let's do it right - let us
> simply have a DNSO general assembly and dump this discriminatory nonesense
> called "constituencies".
No, let's not -- I don't want to waste my time on dogmatic fantasies.
I'm interested in realistic possibilities that the ICANN board might
actually consider. They might consider modifying the General
Assembly into a special-case constituency. They might consider an
IDNO constituency, though I think that the current effort is a lost
cause. They may consider that the general membership of ICANN, and
the current GA, are better places for individuals to bring their
concerns. But they sure as hell are not going to throw out the
entire structure of the DNSO and start all over again.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain