Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

ploki_xyz@hotmail.com (Fri 05/31/02 at 06:17 PM +0000):

> >feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
> >the following criteria would need to be applied:
> >
> >     - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
> >     - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
> >       or 'interim' board
> >     - it could not be legally represented by JDRP
> 
> Funny that you focus only on *who* and not *what*.
> Well, than if somebody (Bin Laden?) will make a bid for NewCo against Vint 
> Cerf, according to your criteria it should be preferred.

wrong. i said: 'AT LEAST the following criteria.' and i went on to 
talk about why this 'personal' approach was inadequate -- but you 
snipped that part out so you could say something 'clever.'

> >therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
> >formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss
> >criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
> >had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those
> >records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way
> >to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating
> >positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.
> 
> Ever heard about "Internet Times"? IFWP is several generations ago.

ever heard of sophistry? it's 2500 years old and still going strong.
do you have an actual argument, or are we supposed to dispose of all
that work merely because you like quoting old WiReD covers?

cheers,
t
--
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