Re: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Well, it's certainly a way to eliminate the at-large and replace it
with the IDNHC.  This is definitely NOT what the majority of net 
users
want and NOT what is meant by the at-large in the White Paper.  
The
At-large is NOT to be a part of the DNSO.  It is to be the AT-
LARGE
and deal with all aspects of ICANN - all the SOs and separate from
them.

What else will be suggested to pervert the White Paper and 
mandate for ICANN?

Leah


On 28 Aug 2001, at 8:47, Mike Roberts wrote:

> At 23:01 -0400 8/27/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Dear Mike,
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >What role do you see for the General Assembly in your six-SO model?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
> 
> The ALSC report makes a cogent case for the establishment of an ALSO
> based on individual domain name holders.  I think the high energy
> level of the GA could be used well in getting the ALSO off the
> ground and making it - especially its Council - a success.
> 
> The report also says the committee thinks ways should be found to
> "jump start" the ALSO.  The GA has a nucleus of people who could
> contribute to that.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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