>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Joop Teernstra
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 22:53:51 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (unknown [203.96.92.3])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD06F005
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:53:49 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from [210.55.151.55] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz
> (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP
> id <19990703025048.WEXT112692.mta2-rme@[210.55.151.55]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:50:48 +1200
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1
>Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:22:38 +1200
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [IFWP] Re: Draft NCDNHC Charter!
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Message-Id: <19990703025048.WEXT112692.mta2-rme@[210.55.151.55]>
>
>William Walsh wrote:
>
>>>Until Michael Sondow agrees that you have=20
>>>a consensus document, you don't. =20
>>>
>>Mr Sondow would never agree to any document which did not raise him to
>>some position of power where he has the ultimate say.
>>
>>Your position that until Mr Sondow agrees to a document it is not
>>consensus is as unacceptable as their proposal.
>>
>>Being one of the first people to say they want to help form a
>>constituency conveys absolutely no rights or privileges to that
>>person.
>>
>>
>William,
>I don't think the personality of the proponent should be a major factor in
>deciding whether there is a consensus document.
>
>A good consensus document tries to embody the different viewpoints, yes,
>including of those who felt motivated enough to come with a first
>constituency organizing proposal.
>
>While I agree that being the first gives no rights or privileges to the
>person, shutting somebody out who has taken an initiative is bound to
>create ill will, beyond Mr Sondow himself.
>
>If the same thing were to happen to the IDNO constituency, I am sure there
>would be a lot of very angry people.
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
>the Cyberspace Association,
>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>http://www.idno.org
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
