<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|