[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: [IFWP] Re: Status Report for DNRC]

---- Begin included message ----
Jay Fenello a écrit:
> >At 8:27 PM -0400 4/26/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >>Seriously, this (plus many other similar postings, not picking on you
> >>Mikki!) makes me wonder:  why bother with constituencies if everyone wants
> >>to join each one?

I don't know if these postings were meant for public consumption,
but I can't resist adding my voice to Jay Fenello's, and remind you,
Esther, and the rest of the board, that the supporters of the Paris
draft, which after all is fully fifty percent of those involved in
DNSO negotiations, did not want constituencies at all. We saw them,
and see them still, as nothing other than a device by which our
enemies - big business special interests - are gaining the upper
hand in ICANN.

You ask why Iperdome and other small and medium-size stakeholders
are making a claim for participation in multiple constituencies. But
you do not ask why the membership and funders of ISOC have not
merely joined
but are organizing most of the constituencies in the DNSO, and
excluding others. What do you think that your reaction against
Iperdome and the other independent small stakeholders looks like?
Are you unaware of the partiality of what you are doing, or are you
consciously helping politically one side in this conflict against
the other?
---- End included message ----