Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
- To: ga the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Please keep pressing this point. It needs to be continuously pounded on in all
--- On Mon, 9/28/09, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
To: "ga the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Kimberly.Peretti@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 11:06 AM
On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2009, at 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> So, if there is any willingness to create a registrant constituency, this is
>> the right time. Of course, a new constituency has to fit within one of the
>> SGs. For instance, an "Individual Non_Commercial Registrant Constituency"
>> could easily be created as part of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group
> And an Individual Commercial Registrants Constituency could be created
> (easily?) as part of the Commercial Stakeholder Group.
> So, who knows, the people on the GA list could conceivably organize
> themselves into 2 registrant constituencies, not just one.
"If there is any willingness"
One would think, that since ICANN is almost 100% funded by taxes on
Registrants, that ICANN should be paying for the "organising" for Registrants
from those taxes?
Registrants shouldn't have to "prove" they need a voice in the ICANN process.
"Willingness to create"?. They're already PAYING for the process, for chrissake.
Ten years of taxation without representation.