RE: [IFWP] Re: Registrar Constituency meeting - Berlin

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 3:34 PM
>
> Christopher,
>
> In message <011001bea562$f1027240$7dc72599@vorlon>,
> "Christopher Ambler" writes:
>

> > While most posters could make the appropriate fixes to their mail
> > servers, I cannot help but wonder about someone who has no control
> > over their system or ISP and cannot, therefore, post (especially if
> > their ISP won't make the necessary changes). While it also may be
> > correct to say, "get another ISP that will," in this instance I
> > believe it is not appropriate.
>
> This is the DNSO we are talking about.  We *ARE* it!  Or supposed to
> be.

That's what *they* say. However, that statement may be less than
accurate. The theory is somewhat different than the application. An
entire stakeholder group is being disenfranchised and *that* makes
whatever consensus, reached without them, a lie! One can not pick and
choose stakeholds, and when you get your personal choice together, call
that *the* consensus. To call that "less than honest" would be
understating the issue.

> Anyone not being able to sort out one's own DNS should be allowed in
> here!

This sounds elitist, but Doc has a point here. We wouldn't want
politicians running the AMA either (oops, maybe we already have that).
But then, this would exclude the entire ICANN BoD wouldn't it?

To the point, the previous wrt DNS, was sarcastic. Of course I disagree.
However, I do feel it is incumbent upon participants to at least become
familiar with the capability/limits of the DNS.