J. Baptista wrote:
>
> So - as it respect ICANN, we can either clean up the shit - together, or
> watch it fly together. I'm game either way, then end result will be the
> same.
Perhaps for you. Not for me. I can't and won't sign their registrant
contract, and they will take away my domain nam
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> J. Baptista wrote:
> >
> > looks like good news on the
> > surface
>
> How do you figure that? Helping ICANN to make believe that the
> At-large membership actrually has some say in things, and that ICANN
> is being fair and democratic, when it's no
J. Baptista wrote:
>
> looks like good news on the
> surface
How do you figure that? Helping ICANN to make believe that the
At-large membership actrually has some say in things, and that ICANN
is being fair and democratic, when it's not? Haven't you read the
new bylaws amendments?
> The n
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1425922.html?tag=st.cn.1002newsfd.
in case anyone did not see this today. looks like good news on the
surface, but i anticipate the $200,000 won't even pay for the cgi cript to
record general members - we'll see what happens.
Foundation to fund ICANN's gener
