[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA) Subtitle: COnstituencies are silly...
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA) Subtitle: COnstituencies are silly...
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:32:56 +0100
- CC: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, DOMAIN-POLICY@lists.internic.net, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>, ICANN SO comments <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DNSO <email@example.com>, DNS Policy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, William Daley <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Karl and all,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > So, somewhere down the line, it is going to be required that these two
> > candidate constituencies get together to form one out of both, or for
> > one to kill the other off.
> Why not let 'em both exist and fight for mind share?
A very good suggestion Karl.
> This only demonstrates the overall sillyness of constituencies.
How true. But it seems in the infinite wisdom of the ICANN Interim
Board and some of those from the DNSO.ORG bunch, this would not
seem to be their take, all be it well known that built in COnstituencies
the DNSO was not a consensus decision.
> The only solution is to let people form aggregations as they see fit,
> and change them as they see fit, but to give all voting or appointive
> powers to the individuals and none to the aggregations themselves.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208