Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Due to your inspiration, I went to
see what I could find, even tho the search interface at icann.org is
broken, and the bylaws at ~/about/bylaws-
Nevertheless, I persevered: the draft minutes of the board meeting
of 31 March (at
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:59:27PM +, Kerry Miller wrote:
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Due to your inspiration, I went to
see what I could find, even tho the search interface at icann.org is
broken, and the bylaws at ~/about/bylaws-
Sorry -- I was under the impression that you
esther,
in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report.
maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being
referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
no written info, i
YUP IT IS!!!
my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for
open meetings? : )
jeri
Jeri and all,
If you remember some time ago I attempted to enlighten you in regards
to Esther Dyson and the ICANN INterim Board. This confusion is just
another example of her many attempts to expunge herself and the ICANN in a manner that
is somewhat less than honest and accurate but in
a
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the
distinctions among the three
Esther,
I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to
reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in
principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you
At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the
report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you had done.
Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in
PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined
Two points:
1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report
"in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very
controversial parts of it. For those who object to the entire proposal
regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement
"in
At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat
out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:03:54 -0700, Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address
Supporting Organization in Santiago.
Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there
mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at-
large membership?
kerry
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:42:40PM +, Kerry Miller wrote:
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address
Supporting Organization in Santiago.
Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there
mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and
14 matches
Mail list logo
