>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote:
>
>> If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the
>> others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now
>>those reasons in detail.
>
and Patrick greenwell added:
>Their stated objection to this in Boston was that effective decision
>making cannot be done in open board meetings, and if forced to do so, all
>decisions would be made elsewhere and the board meeting would be window
>dressing.
Cook: if this is what they really belive it is sad. they need to discuss
what they regard as effective decision making and discuss it will us, in
public with repect for ech other under civil discourse rules
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
