On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 09:31:21AM -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> > But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much
> > the consensus from last year's IFWP process,
>
> Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of
> diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case
> with the current proposal.
I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic
diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, and is
a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the
DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue.
> > and, though I admit
> > it is technically difficult to adopt with complex structure of SOs and
> > at large members, the central principle should be well preserved.
>
> At what cost?
At whatever cost it takes. It is a requirement.
> > Also please remember that many people who are not English native
> > have been relatively quiet, but that does not mean that they all agree.
>
> Exactly the point. Just because you are from Japan does not make you the
> better representative for a Japanese (or Indian or Australian) member of
> ICNN than Onno Hovers or Jim Dixon.
Tell that to the Japanese.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
