Re: [atlarge-discuss] Our New Name Isn't...

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 17:22:18 +1300, Joop Teernstra
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:
>At 09:56 p.m. 3/10/2002 +0000, David Farrar wrote:
>
>>Another issue worth looking at is whether we should form a sub grouping of
>>members who are domain name holders and petition for recognition as a GNSO
>>constituency.
>
>>I believe that the grounds which IDNO got rejected on would not
>>apply here and that this organisation offers the best chance of getting an
>>individual registrants voice in the GNSO.
>
>Not disagreeing with the suggestion, can you please enlighten us on what " 
>grounds which IDNO got rejected on "?
>As such denial of our petition was never officially made, this is something 
>I have forever been trying  to find out from the Board and if you know the 
>answer it would be very useful to let the members here know.

Oh you are right that no formal answer was ever give (which was
disgraceful).  However from I picked up the membership numbers at the
time were not high enough to overcome questions of representativeness.

icannatlarge.org with over 1,000 direct members has more participants
than pretty much all the other constituencies combined and would be
much harder to find an excuse not to recognise.  

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de