<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: "constituency" and "GNSO"
Jim Fleming wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
>
>
>>Who can still say that domain name registrants do not need a
>>Constituency of their own in the GNSO?
>>
>>
>====================================
>
>With all due respect, when you use terms like "constituency" and "GNSO" you are buying into a structure
>that is pre-determined to be biased **against** the "domain name registrants".
>
I don't believe in a determinist world. I believe we live in the world
we make.
>That just helps to perpetuate "the Big Lie Society", which un-educated netizens have no idea they are endorsing.
>
The more who take notice, the more that will inevitably be led to your
conclusions if things are as you say. Would you have a problem with that?
>
>Why would that be good for domain name registrants ?
>
More of them might come forward and get to know each other. I think
getting to know people is a good thing. Especially when common
interests are involved. Don't you?
--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
--
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
>>>
|