[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
I understand your view better now.
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 7:02 AM
To: Dan Steinberg; email@example.com
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: [Membership] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
At 23:06 5/02/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>As for the rest of your post, I was not pleased to see the content of
>those press releases, (nor was I that happy about the idea of a PR
>firm doing this kind of thing) but I really don't see the relevance to
>the issue of membership restrictions.
>> If "personnel" working in the Internet industry are now also to be
>> considered affected, how far is ICANN's arm going to reach?
>> Together with the hiring of Ogylvy as Public Relations consultant, it
>> looks like an attempt to dilute the only group of stakeholders that would
>> *really* be interested to have representatives on the Board.
Dan , Diane and all,
No direct relevance with the recent press releases, but perhaps lots of
relevance for the future, when Ogylvy will advise on how to recruit "at
large" members from very specific interest groups; people with no stakes in
a Net presence of their own, but with a great interest to "control" or
This is one of the arguments for restricting the membership to people with
It will leave the composition of the "at large" membership less open to
This issue needs to be debated more widely than it has been up to now.
It is not that registering one Domain Name would be such a great impediment
to becoming a member, is it?
It is not discrimination, not an exclusion based on something one cannot