On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
> FWIW, I agree with Karl that an individual domain holders' constituency is
> needed - I just no longer believe that the IDNO effort as currently
> structured is the appropriate vehicle for their representation. The
> practical effect of Kent's proposal would be to give those who qualify for
> an existing constituency two or more votes for the Names Council and
> everyone else one. It does not take into account that individual domain
> holders are generally the DNS stakeholders who have the fewest resources to
> defend themselves, and consequently the most to lose. Their interests need
> specific representation.
They are also the ones being asked to foot the bill for ICANN, without any
representation whatsoever at present.
I'd say I found that odd, but it really makes perfect sense.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
