Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Mr. Cerf,

Surely you jest?

You have the audacity to suppose what is best for users.  You are an Ivory tower twit.  I read in an article just last week you cannot even hook up your own
internet at home.  You stated that you would have someone run a t1 line to your home. You are so far removed and vacated from real users that Worldcom should
elevate you to saint so you are assured of living with your own kind.

The U.S. already has millions of online voters.  Why can't you people do the same world wide.  You cry the same old tyrant song, "we cannot have elections to
replace me because I cannot make them fair" Bullshit!

Never, Never never assume that you can make decisions for us users because you are an abuser and have no decency for us users.

Have a nice day!
Eric

vint cerf wrote:

> At 11:50 PM 3/17/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >At 20:26 17/03/02, vint cerf wrote:
> >>the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> >>on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> >>among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
> >>
> >>The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
> >>criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
> >>awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide
> >>range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
> >>etc.
> >
> >
> >These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in proportion of 300.000.000 people each,
>
> we know it is impossible to have direct representation for 500M users of the Internet. Similarly it is
> impossible to directly represent every country in the world. The board is supposed to be composed of
> people who can think about the needs of the Internet and its users, providers, etc as members of a
> team: the board of trustees of ICANN. Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
> he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy determinations for ICANN.
>
> >
> >
> >Don't you think that selecting every three years 6 @large directors will be as much complex and costly as choosing every 12 years an UN General Secretary?
>
> Assuming staggered terms the selection process would be annual wouldn't it?
>
> >>Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments as adjunct or alternative.
> >
> >Why not just a cost based upon the rendered services - if any - with a cross subsidization among the TLDs charging their users and the ones not charging them?
>
> this is certainly an approach worth pursuing with the various funding constituencies.
>
> >When will we see the ICANN rates?
>
> when the proposed budget emerges probably at or before Bucharest.
>
> >jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" 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