Re: [discuss] Individual representation

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 08:18:47AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
>>> Agreed.  It means the academic employees -- the academics (NOT the
>>> "academic institutions") -- are disenfranchised. Which was my point and
>>> Ellen's, and which neither of us seems to be able to put in terms you will
>>> grok.
>>
> 
> The interests of a university as an institution or the university as a 
> .edu name owner are wholly distinct from the interests of the academics 
> who are employees of the university.

Apparently Randy's point blew right by.  I will repeat it here:
>>i understand it.  but it is quite irrelevant.  the same applies to the isp
>>employees, the commercial institution employees, ...

> Why allow an administrator who cares 
> about .edu domain policy to participate, while leaving behind the 
> trademark experts from the law school, theoriticians from the school of 
> government, and the protocol experts from the engineering school, to but 
> a few obvious examples.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing them from participating.  In
fact, they ARE participating.  You aren't a member of any 
constituency; I'm not a member of any constituency; Froomkin isn't a 
member of any constituency; and here we are, participating.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain