On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 01:56, DPF wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:21:25 -0000, "Richard Henderson" > <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > >>>This is another reason why we need nz@large. Because the NZ House know the > >NZ incorporated > >>>consumer organization, it does not know ectoplasm such as > >"icannatalarge.org" and would not be excited at an US, French, >>Canadian, > >VI or else non profit organization wanting to relate with them. > >>> > >>>jfc > > > >This final point is particularly relevant - I think the strong argument for > >national/local AtLarge organisations is the added legitimacy they can derive > >from seeking to speak authoritatively on the local/national interests, > >liaise with ccTLD operatives > > But in many countries registrants already have great representation > with the ccTLD so don't need some subset of a global group. In Canada > all registrants are eligible to elect some of their CIRA Board. In > New Zealand the InternetNZ Council is dominated by registrants with > only one of 18 members being an industry rep. That's great for registrants, but the proverbial "Mom & Pop" still lack an appropriate level of representation. One day in the future it may become common for everyone to get a domain name and/or permanent IP address as part of signing up for Internet service. However, until that point -- and, actually, as part of working toward that future -- "Mom & Pop" lack appropriate representation. -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part