John B. Reynolds wrote:
>What part of "individual" don't you understand? ISOC's individual members
>vastly outnumber its commercial ones.
And not a single one of them will be allowed to participate directly in
the ISOC version of the non-commercial domain name holder constituency.
A rather bizarre result, I think. I am a member of ISOC and support its
mission (as quoted by Kent in an earlier post). But I honestly cannot
understand why the organization has drafted the constituency proposal
that it has. Here was an opportunity to support ICANN by providing
constituency leadership and technical support for both the non-commercial
entities and individuals who own domain names, yet ISOC opted to fulfill
only half of that role.
The constituency model adopted by the commercial-business constituency
would have been far better. In that constituency, both individual
companies and corporate organizations can participate side-by-side in the
same group.
Why did the ISOC draft split that group when it came to the
non-commercial domain name holder constituency?
The only statement in the ISOC proposal is ISOC's "belief that it is
impractical to have both individual members and organizations as voting
members within a constituency...." Please explain. And no sniping
responses please. I'm serious. Why is ISOC's model better?
-- Bret
