RE: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Agreed Joop, the message should be read in positive sense. And as the
next step the concept of Individual Registrants Constituency should come
to life as an official body representing the interests of
users/stakeholders within the ICANN organization. I do not see anything
wrong with that.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joop Teernstra
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:59 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting


At 02:08 p.m. 18/01/2008, Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
>Hi Jeff,
>
>I posted this info to the list because I believe it is important for 
>people to know who claims to be representing registrant interests.

Ted,

If you truly find that important, then why not back a structure where
such representatives can be properly filtered and elected?

Instead of kicking over the  delusional strawman, isn't it better to
heed the message : lacking a proper representational structure, a Bill
of Registrant Rights is indeed the next best thing registrants could
hope for.

Don't you agree, Roberto?

-joop-