Re: [Membership] The real reason language is not the issue

[Diane Cabell <cabell@mama-tech.com>]

Most proposals on the table for at-large membership favor open enrollment. IFWP
subscribers, therefore, would be perfectly free to join (other possible
membership criteria aside).  I don't understand the nature of this "nuclear"
role you are proposing for IFWP.  Could you explain it?

Diane Cabell

Eric Weisberg wrote:

> Esther Dyson wrote:
> >
> > Other comments, especially from those non-native-English speakers (who of
> > course are not the non-ENglish speakers who are not on this list)?
>
> (....) The question is whether the IFWP (list, attendees at meetings and
> anyone else who cares to join) should form the nucleus of ICANN's
> membership (a "jump start"), not whether we should communicate in
> other languages than English.  There is no connection between
> these issues, other than the fact that the IFWP list profile may
> have been skewed in favor of English speakers (which must be dealt
> with through active outreach to the non-English speaking world).