sigh ....
i always thought california was part of the usa... what about texas ( home
of dell and compaq) ,south dakota (home of gateway computers).., atlanta..
what about sao paolo, mexico city or peking .. what about substantive
membership issues.. what about concentrating on providing more meaningful
input instead of whining over this innocuous insignificant issue
why don't you work on substantive issues rather than trying to make a
mountain out of an anthill..
get a life ellen.....
ken stubbs
(looking for my globe & criticizing ellen of being "california centric")
-----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:53 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no
more! Was Re: do wewant......?
>Esther Dyson wrote:
>
>>Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against
>>California?
>
>Well, since you asked, I have speculated on this very question. California
>is (a) the largest state in the nation; (b) the home of Silicon Valley
>with arguably the largest concentration of computer development and
>expertise; (c) the domicile of the late, great IANA; and (d) the state of
>ICANN's incorporation. These are four excellent reasons to hold an ICANN
>board meeting in this state.
>
>IMHO, the ICANN board is afraid of a potential media or member circus here.
>IMHO, the same reasoning that has ICANN board members drawing themselves
>into the protective shell of closed board meetings applies to staging a
>meeting in California. They are reluctant to appear in a state that is
>known for its liberal, sometimes over-the-edge politics and reluctant to be
>in such close proximity to so many who better comprehend the underlying DNS
>issues in play.
>
>Since we are not privy to your deliberations, perhaps you can explain why
>ICANN has not scheduled a meeting here. California is too big to overlook;
>too long ignored not to notice. If this is by "accident", that really
>calls into question how ICANN decides where to stage its meetings. Are
>y'all throwing darts at a map?
>
>It appears that important recommendations are made by the relatively few
>who can afford these F2F meetings. Even though we all inhabit an
>electronic community, references to the elusive duck we call "consensus"
>are always based on physical presence (and voice votes) at a meeting. With
>all the technical savvy that surely exists on these lists, we have not
>managed to hold a decent poll or attempt an electronic vote. The consensus
>call made on site becomes the line in the sand.
>
>The IFWP,. ICANN and DNSO meetings have dotted the globe -- Reston, Geneva,
>Buenos Aires, Washington, Singapore (also Barcelona, Boston, and Monterrey)
>and, next, Berlin. Anyone with a 6th grade mastery of geography would
>notice that these hops on the international travel circuit have carefully
>sidestepped the U.S. West Coast.
>
>If I sound genuinely aggrieved, good. I am.
>
>But I also am genuinely looking forward to meeting you on March 18.
>
>
>Ellen Rony
Co-author
>The Domain Name Handbook
http://www.domainhandbook.com
>============================ //
================================
>ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415)
435-5010
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon,
CA
> On the Internet, // \\ no one knows you're a dog
>"Strategic planning is worthless unless there is strategic
>vision."(J.Naisbitt)
>
>
>
