Ms. Dyson and Everyone,
Ms, Dyson, I really hope that your response here isn't a serious one. I also
hope for your and the future of ICANN's sake that if you are serious in your
predetermined decision, that you will make a concerted effort to reconsider.
This response, as I am sure you are
Esther,
Your comments below lead me to ask, what is your definition of a bottom-up
self-organizing process?
Is it one where nine unelected and unaccountable people define how the
Internet community is to be represented in the technical coordination of
domain names and IP addresses?
Is it one
Simply appalling!
Not only has Esther again declared herself to be
a member of the "Initial" board, not only has she
snubbed one of the best organized constituencies
(which already boasts on-line, electronic voting),
but she even had the gall to send out this rebuff
with a *low* priority
Jay Fenello wrote:
Simply appalling!
Not only has Esther again declared herself to be
a member of the "Initial" board, not only has she
snubbed one of the best organized constituencies
(which already boasts on-line, electronic voting),
but she even had the gall to send out this rebuff
with a
Jay and all,
I must concur with Jay on this.
Jay Fenello wrote:
Simply appalling!
Not only has Esther again declared herself to be
a member of the "Initial" board, not only has she
snubbed one of the best organized constituencies
(which already boasts on-line, electronic voting),
but
Dear Joop and colleagues -
I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
Name Holders' Constituency. As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
consider it in Berlin because it was not among the seven constituencies we
hoped to see form to constitute the full
On 20 August 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) wrote:
Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
*represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
Although the process is certainly messy, the concerns of individuals and
Esther and all,
Nice try Esther, but no cigar, as they say! ;) Excellent political
posturing,
but lacks sufficient substance, and is therefore your *Reasons* are more in
line with *Excuses*, and I have no doubt that they will be viewed
as such, by in large.
Esther Dyson wrote:
Dear Joop
Might one ask who made this agenda-setting decision, and when?
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
Dear Joop and colleagues -
I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
Name Holders' Constituency. As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
Bret and all,
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Esther Dyson wrote:
Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
*represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
Another avenue for individual domain name holders to let their interests
be
Friday, August 20, 1999, 11:56:26 AM, Bret A. Fausett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Esther Dyson wrote:
Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
*represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
Another avenue for individual domain
Professor Froomkin and all,
Excellent questions here Professor, and ones that deserve a direct
and definitive answers. How about it Esther?
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Might one ask who made this agenda-setting decision, and when?
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson
Esther Dyson wrote:
Dear Joop and colleagues -
I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
Name Holders' Constituency.
Thank you, Oh Great Queen of the Internet.
As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
consider it in Berlin because it was not among
13 matches
Mail list logo
