Well, how about that.
With Kent Crispin here the beans are already spilt, which is why I am leaving.
Cheers...\Stef
At 00:38 -0700 11/09/01, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling
>our beans;-)...
>
>So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on
>participating in both. We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but
>we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no
>good purpose other then to lose our heads.
>
>We need to use some stealth in our effort to route around ICANN.
>We do not need to visibly thumb our noses at them, or parade by with
>a brass band to get their attention.
>
>It is hard to agree to ignore them and at the same time work with
>them in their faked up committees.
>
>So, I fear you are going to get you chance to choose paths.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>At 00:11 +0200 11/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>>Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
>>a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
>>possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
>>success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
>>each other. I am not putting any money on ICANN. Still, I don't see
>>why I could not participate in some of its processes and at the same
>>time be part of 'alternatives'. I would rather see things in the
>>perspective of the wrong party being in power. Not the power being so
>>entagled in cosa nostra that all I can do is buy a gun and go into the
>>mountains.
>>Anyway, I live in a country that is flat.
