Patrick and all, Patrick Corliss wrote: > Thank you, Jeff (Williams), that's cleared up a few points. Well I am very glad it does! >;) I had hoped it would. > > > The reason I raised it was because of the post "Floating root servers and > stupid lawyer questions - was: Sunrise" by Dr Joe Baptista. This went to to > IFWP list which I was subscribed to and referred to a posting by Michael > Graham. > > Dr Joe's comments included several references "stupid lawyer stuff" and I > take it that he feels frustrated at the recent tendency towards > "governance". Although I would have phrased it very differently, I share > his sentiments. Yes I think that Joe is in disagreement with the type of Governance as it seems to be heading presently from ICANN, the TM lobby and WIPO. I too along with some 112 members (Stakeholders) of INEGroup share this sentiment as well. And from what I gather so do most of those in the Non-commercial DNSO constituency. Yet we see ICANN and WIPO blindly moving in a direction in which there is no majority consensus, not to mention a measured consensus of any sort. This is known as on of several steps to "Stacking the Deck". This is also quite evident in the manner in which the ICANN At-Large membership is being set up as well. Not a good sign, IOHO.... > > > My problem was that the thread Dr Joe was referring to was not on IFWP at > all. And I was not a member of the other two lists at that time. Now Dr > Joe was taken to task by Michael Graham for "flaming". But what list was > that reply posted to? Either list would be viable and proper. > > > Unless you're on all the lists, it's hard to follow the thread. And if > everybody is on all the lists, why do you need to have three lists? I ask this question over a year ago when ICANN was in the process of early forming and suggested as well as requested that only one list from ICANN be established. Esther Dyson and the than Interim Board of ICANN declined. So, here we are... > > > Unless you want anarchy, there must be some sort of protocol (which is what > the lawyers are arguing). Protocol is fine as long as the participants are in majority agreement as to what that Protocol is or should be. It seems obvious to me anyway that is not the case.... > > > Personally I'm in favour of anarchy. Anarchy has it's uses and its place from time to time. I am not sure that this is either the time or place for it, but it seems that in spurts, we seem to have anarchy anyway.... > > > Patrick Corliss Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
