Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

As one who has been advocating dumping ICANN for a very long time now, 
and having seen the same sentiments expressed by countless others, the 
James Love "motion" can hardly be classified as a CPTech campaign.  On 
the contrary, it seems to me that the Chair has lost all objectivity on 
the issue -- even under the narrow confines of the DNSO/GA procedures, 
it is the function of the Chair to administer motions and the like, not 
to attack them -- it's a cost of having the job. This little episode 
only underlines my suggestion that the GA folks involved on this issue 
carry on without regard to the Chair or DNSO.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-09 13:39:57 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>> Is there a "PR value" in a statement from the GA?  I would hope  so.  
>> That would mean that people actually care what the GA says.   How 
>> could this not be clear, both on and off list?  And how would  it be 
>> a bad thing if a GA statement was actually noticed by  people?
>
>
> What a wonderful world - Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on  Technology 
> (and its director, James Love) doing free PR for the DNSO's General 
> Assembly.
>
> Bad enough, what I've seen so far points in the opposite direction:  
> The Consumer Project on Technology's director trying to abuse the GA 
> as a throw-away public relations tool.
>
> So, once again, the question to everyone involved with this: Do you  
> want that?  Do you really think that a little PR booster for a  
> campaign of CPTech is worth giving up on the GA?
>
> Think twice, and respond, please.  Your responses may quite well  
> influence what's going to happen.
>


--
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