ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] GA Credibility.


Well that would certainly keep the numbers down since no newbie 
would know who to ask for endorsement.

On 29 May 2001, at 11:59, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 21:47 28/05/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Roeland,
> >
> >>....... What it also does is demonstrate, for the ICANN, that
> >>general transparency isn't ready for prime-time. It is the strongest
> >>argument against the @LArge that the ICANN has. A demonstration of chaos,
> >>if you will.
> >
> >
> >Any suggestion to change this?
> 
> Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership of the GA
> (and especially posting rights on the list) should be endorsed by a minimum
> of 5 other individual GA members. (number of 5 is of course open to debate)
> This would make each poster to the GA list a sort of "representative" with
> accompanying rights and obligations.
> 
> 
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>