<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity
I would agree with everything Eric says, and putting this up was a very
good piece
of work. For possible use at Stockholm, what I would be doing (in my
current state
of just working my way into this whole thing) if I were going, since
we seem to have
a Resolution from the Board regarding an Individuals Constituency,
and evidently some
action (i.e., form a Working Group) expected out of the Names Council,
I would
search the archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html, under the
NC, and maybe
there we'll find out what's going on. (I'll be doing that
search myself, but I also have
to make a living with this computer thingee here in front of me!) I
hope to find stuff,
but if nothing is there, the above link reference will go into my EVIDENCE
folder.
(My thanks to the Secretariat for re-directing me to that site -- I'd
had it once but
lost it. But a dumb question: why is the NC mailing list not
public? How does that
square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)
(Um, "black ops" are not fictional.)
Eric, your best line is this one: "Whether your ultimate goal was reached
or not the
wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and passionate"
-- Joop's
work certainly helped me get going!
Bill Lovell
Eric Dierker wrote:
Joop,
You and I will never agree on many issues but that is the nature of
us.
But, no one can ever doubt your hard work and comittment to the cause.
Of all of the people that have kept ICANN from going completely into black
ops it is you. (black ops are "fictional" operations of a clandestine nature
that are not recorded or paid for officially). Wether your ultimate goal
was reached or not the wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals
involved and passionate.
Now with that platitude aside and with all your wisdom would you please
lay out the steps "I" would need to do at the Open board meeting, in Stockholm,
to present a document and an argument to have this constituency NOW. As
I think I have already confessed I amoung others would make lousy Chairs
but we can fight for and "die" for a good cause. Some of us may even
be trained a little in the arts of persuasion.
Sincerely,
"William S. Lovell" wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.
>Last updated June 1999.
>
Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear
on
the ICANN website at all.
Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.
Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.
If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that your efforts
were not
persistent, that would have been a misleading. Although your
material
appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is
not
your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999.
If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!),
what I
intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"
("That page" being http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.)
Bill Lovell
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|