RE: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports

[Bruce Young]

Thanks for the link.  This only serves, though, to support my original
argument: if the DNSO has a Individuals' Constituency representing all
individual domain name holders, why give them the At-Large as well?

Bruce Young
Client Engineering
Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications
Phone: 503.466.6571
Fax: 503.466.6775
E-mail:  Bruce.Young@nwdc.ibs-lmco.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:43 PM
To: Bruce Young
Cc: jandl@jandl.com; forum@atlargestudy.org
Subject: RE: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports


At 21:52 8/10/01 -0700, Bruce Young wrote:

>Joop wrote:
>
> >I am not sure if the DNSO can be maintained as is.
>2>The ALSC reports' Authors themselves were all (Carld Bildt, Esther Dyson
> >and Pindar) extremely vague about the consequences of their proposals for
> >the future of the DNSO (and of course for any Individuals' Constituency
> >within it.)
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what was the intent behind an Individuals'
>Constituency within the DNSO, and what is its constituency?  If it is
>Internet users, isn't this duplicative of the At-Large effort?

Your ignorance can be cured quickly at www.idno.org
The constituency is Individual Domain Names Owners, not all Internet Users.

The effort has been started back in April 1999, when the at large was still
a promised membership for Internet Users.
The petitions have been fruitless and fobbed off for years with references
to worthless @large representation.


--Joop