IMHO no need to apologize however you can most likely expect
warning message from Molly regarding cross posting as that seems
to be forbidden in the rules of the email@example.com list
With respect to your content comments, we have always agreed
any policy decisions to be determined by the ICANN, once finally formed,
should be determined by the membership before enactment. However
we felt that a "Super Majority" VOTE is not necessary. If you could
elaborate on you meaning of "fundamental aspects of our relationship",
as it seems to us anyway that any policy decisions that the ICANN
membership might be considering would have a effect on what
characterize as "fundamental aspects of our relationship".
Eric Weisberg wrote:
I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought IKindest Regards,
would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the
discussion to firstname.lastname@example.org where we should be assembling
the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure.
Charles Nesson wrote:
> we must defend against capture
I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
As a matter of simultaneous discussion, I propose that the best
way to lessen the likelihood of capture is to maximize the number
and diversity of interests on the board through proportionate
representation; electing all seats at the same time; and requiring
super-majority votes for decisions affecting the fundamental
aspects of our relationship. Any thoughts on these corollary
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