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 differen
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
0, 1999 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - 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 governm
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 Fa
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)
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
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
[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 fo
>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.
