Dave Farber wrote:
If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We
must make it work.
Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I
posit that if ICANN fails,
At 07:33 AM 9/11/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
Dave Farber wrote:
If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We
must make it work.
Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect
On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
concluded that:
...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those
interested in the continued operation of an Internet
whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and innovators.
I don't share Mr. Cook's confidence in
can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat
something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself
How would we know? It's never been tried. The cabalesque dealings so
far, hardly count.
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote:
I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just
can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat
something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it
will be taken as a indicator that the net can
I have no argument on this Let us VOTE and push them hard till we get
the vote. Seems to me I remember something like a cry "no taxation
with out representation"
side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely
bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish.
--gregbo]
Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you
here. But, things are being done for
Franky and all,
Oh no we can't have any of that voting nonsense!!! (Sarcasm intended)
Poor old Capt. Roberts would have a stroke! ;) And that would put
a damper on his free skiing trips via ICANN. That would be a travisty
wouldn't it?
Frank Rizzo wrote:
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David
Franky and all,
Good argument! Unfortunately the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board
and the GIP http://www.gip.org know this which is why they
have continued to thwart any VOTING from taking place from the
Stakeholders.
Frank Rizzo wrote:
At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
Frank
David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get
contributed is secondary to this careful spade work)
But
Greg and all,
Exactly right regarding Corporations having a better financing
to do lobbying collectively or independently. This is why
I put together, along with others, INEGroup. We now have the
financing to compete with the best of them from a $$ standpoint.
Greg Skinner wrote:
David
- intro and part 1 ISOC's
critical role in enabling ICANN
()
Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results?
After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just
directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet
policy if ICANN falls.
I'm all
At 07:26 PM 9/10/99 , Diane Cabell wrote:
The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through
Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that.
That's entirely separate from "Internet governance."
The major intellectual property players in Washington have
always played a
13 matches
Mail list logo
