>Considering which "constituencies" to attend to can be done in two, very
>different ways.
>
>One is academically and mathematically pure, along the likes of Karl A's
>logic, in which someone tries to make an exhaustive list of every aspect of
>the topic that might engender debate, where "debate" defines (at least) two
>sides and therefore (at least) two constituencies. This approach is
>certain to fail, for a large number of reasons, but makes for good debating
>technique.
>
>The other approach is to pay attention to constituencies that self-form,
>develop a substantial membership, and start lobbying for recognition. In
>other words, they do the work necessary to show that they are a real --
>rather than theoretical -- force for the current topic.
>
>This, of course, is far more practical in spite of being mathematically
impure.
>
Well, Kent, you can count the real people that are rallying around the
banner of the Individual DNO constituency , you can see the charter that
has been written, the lobbying for recognition in Singapore and in Berlin
and yes, you can subscribe to the mailing list too. Just revisit the
website or send a "subscribe idno" message to listmanager@radix.co.nz .
There is no lack of traffic (over a 100 messages so far).
As the owner of songbird.com, you even qualify for membership.
But I'm afraid a Pauline conversion would be in order, as the aims of your
PAB and ours would present a conflict of interest.
And that is our raison-d'etre according to Karl's logic.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/