Adam Peake wrote:
>I asked if you had tried. Join the list, submit an application, and if your
>application is challenged (probably will be) argue your case.
It appears that the only way to complain about a skewed structure (i.e.,
the gerrymandering of the DNSO constituencies) is to try to get entry into
the very structure with which one finds problematic.
The ICANN board has refused at the last two board meetings to consider the
application of the IDNO, despite claiming to be a consensus-based
structure. Meanwhile, it imposes vague complaints upon IDNO of not being
representative of its constutency while not applying the same litmus test
to the other, approved constituencies.
ICANN is icamel, a horse designed by an i[nterim] unelected committee.
If unhappy with
>the result, take it to the board. Example, see the NC list archive
><http://lyris.isoc.org/cgi-bin/ncdnhc/lyris.pl?visit=ncdnhc-discuss> search on
>"Semich" and open mail "COMMENT To ICANN: Membership Criteria for NCDNH
>Constituency".
>
>Individuals with commercial use domain names who want a voice in the DNSO
>might try joining the commercial constituency (has anyone applied and been
>rejected? If I'm just showing ignorance of events, my apologies.) Perhaps
>these constituencies will come up with good reasons for excluding individuals,
>perhaps not.
>
>Or try to form the IDNO, but that would seem to mean accepting no voice for a
>while.
>
>Adam.
............................................................................
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
___________________________ ^..^ )6 _____________________________
+1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CA W W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
............................................................................
