At 12:06 PM 1/31/99 -0500, you wrote:
>While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought to
>make sure that we create constituencies that people active in this
>process would actually belong to. What I mean to say is that I haven't
>seen a whole lot of interest from colleges a
At 04:01 PM 2/1/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 10:56 31/01/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> Also note that, as Active Networks come on-line, this can be
>> supplanted/replaced with LDAP directories. Also, RFC802 needs a re-write
>> anyway (talk about crufty).
>
>You've lost me here. C
Mikki Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
>investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
>not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
>Not
Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 13:18 31/01/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> >Also, I must say that I am equally interested on the NO Constituency
> >model and the MANY CONSTITUENCY model, but not interested in anything
> >in between. I am not welded to either proposal, but if we a
Jay Fenello a écrit:
>
> At 1/31/99, 08:20 AM, Diane Cabell wrote:
> >Do you think that the ICANN At Large membership will be sufficient to
> >serve this purpose?
>
> What at large membership?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNSO
> will be formed before any decisions are
> made wrt the IC
At 4:18 PM -0500 1/31/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>It is quite amazing to me that people seem to not be reading what I
>proposed for 10 constituencies. I continue to see statements that NO
>contituency proposals include ANY PUBLIC INTEREST SEGMENT. And yet,
>my 10 contituency proposal clearly doe
It is quite amazing to me that people seem to not be reading what I
proposed for 10 constituencies. I continue to see statements that NO
contituency proposals include ANY PUBLIC INTEREST SEGMENT. And yet,
my 10 contituency proposal clearly does include one;-)...
Also, I must say that I am equal
One more thought as we continue to talk about this idea of a
constituency-based Names Council, and the addition of constituencies
beyond those in current drafts.
While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought to
make sure that we create constituencies that people active i
At 1/31/99, 02:31 PM, Diane Cabell wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>> ()
>> That's like arguing that citizens of the
>> State of Georgia needn't worry about voting
>> for their state government -- after all, they
>> are represented at the federal level ;-)
>
>My error. I thought Georgia was alread
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 1/31/99, 08:20 AM, Diane Cabell wrote:
> >Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> >> ()
> >> My question was really the opposite --
> >> is there anyone who feels that there
> >> should *not* be a public interest
> >> constituency?
> >>
> >> If so, why?
> >>
> >> Jay.
> >>
> >
> >I h
At 01:07 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNSO
>will be formed before any decisions are
>made wrt the ICANN membership.
This is the main reason I have been keeping silent on this issue.
Discussing DNSO membership, *before* ICANN membership is defined, is
de
At 1/31/99, 08:20 AM, Diane Cabell wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>> ()
>> My question was really the opposite --
>> is there anyone who feels that there
>> should *not* be a public interest
>> constituency?
>>
>> If so, why?
>>
>> Jay.
>>
>
>I haven't been following the DNSO details of late; fo
Hi Bret,
At 1/31/99, 12:06 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
>One more thought as we continue to talk about this idea of a
>constituency-based Names Council, and the addition of constituencies
>beyond those in current drafts.
>
>While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought
Diane Cabell wrote:
> Or does "public interest constituency" mean representatives from public
> interest organizations (such as EFF, ACLU, whatever)?
I certainly hope that that's what it means. I see a "public interest
constituency" as a MANDATORY quid pro quo for the creation of a "trademark"
Jay Fenello wrote:
> ()
> My question was really the opposite --
> is there anyone who feels that there
> should *not* be a public interest
> constituency?
>
> If so, why?
>
> Jay.
>
I haven't been following the DNSO details of late; forgive me if you've
already covered these points.
Do you
Jay and all,
Yes Jay, we do not support ANY constituencies to be defined as part of
a membership or NC seats. We do not because as I have stated
several times before they only promote infighting, constituencies by
there nature create political confusion and promote a "us against them"
contenti
Hi Stef,
I know that there are many who would
support a public interest constituency.
My question was really the opposite --
is there anyone who feels that there
should *not* be a public interest
constituency?
If so, why?
Jay.
At 1/31/99, 12:28 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Please check
Please check for me to make sure that my 10 constituency proposal
still includes a public interest constituency! I belive it was there
in MTY and in all the versions since, so please check to be sure I
have not somehow removed it with some weird key strokes!
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Th
Dr. Lisse and all,
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Mikki,
>
> In message , Mikki Barry writes:
> > At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> > Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism.
>
> Thank you. Benn saying this for years.
So have I and I am as interested in
At 12:08 AM 1/29/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>To clarify, Mikki Barri wrote the piece
>you quoted.
Thanks for noting that. My right hand doesn't work as well as it should,
so I don't always get all the lines out. And I concur with the rest of what
you said as well. :-) And
Jay and all,
Yes, we would object to any constituencies as they are divisive
in nature,a promote discrimination by class...
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 1/30/99, 06:41 PM, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> >>A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council
Hi Bill,
To clarify, Mikki Barri wrote the piece
you quoted.
More comments below . . .
At 1/30/99, 11:57 PM, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 06:41 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>
>>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If
At 06:41 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
>commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
>communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions,
At 1/30/99, 06:41 PM, Mikki Barry wrote:
>At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council (along the lines
>>advocated by CENTRE) simply initiates and then guides this open, public
>>process. There are very important commercial and consumer in
Bret and all,
I am still not sure that we (INEGroup) agree with your contention here,
so I will ask you and the rest of the group a few questions.
1.) Is there any guaranteed seets on the NC for any interest groups or
constituency groups?
2.) Does the At-Large membership (General Assembl
Mikki and all,
Here Here Mikki! We completely agree. Flat membership is that only sure
way to protect the rights of minority interests and at the same time
provide for commercial interests on a level playing field. Our Proposal
provides for this type of flat membership structure...
Mikki B
At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council (along the lines
>advocated by CENTRE) simply initiates and then guides this open, public
>process. There are very important commercial and consumer interests
>though that have made a huge investm
27 matches
Mail list logo
