Tuesday, July 27, 1999, 2:27:19 PM, William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuesday, July 27, 1999, 7:45:47 AM, Mark C. Langston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "Mark C. Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: WG's and constituencies
>> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:45:47 -0700
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>> Importance: Normal
>> X-UIDL: 6504f65388b391114dab90bc4758fcd6
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:34:00 PDT."
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On 27 July 1999, "Mark C. Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>The NC teleconference is currently discussing limiting participation
>>>to consituency representatives, in a list seperate from the actual
>>>WG list.
>>>
>>>In effect, they will:
>>>1) Keep the original WG lists, but they will be ignored,
>>>2) Eliminate any individual participation.
>> Well, they were discussing it. Now it's apparently official.
>> Individuals without constituencies have just been eliminated from
>> participation in the WGs.
> Kent,
> This was the mechanism for individual participation with a
> constituency that you were so fond of advocating?
This should read "without a constituency"
> No other single action by the NC has shown more of a need for the IDNO
> to recognized as a constituency as quickly as possible. ICANN needs
> to act.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
