<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: Legal Question - Re: [wg-review] Concerns
Thank you Mr. Meyer, I've been way shy about speaking up to a couple of
obvious wastes of my inbox space. I am a member of the at large because
along with having a domain, I feel that this first effort to get internet
governance, imperfect as it is, has quite a way to go before being scrapped.
If we do not want a combination of governmets vying for control of a
fragmented anarchic internet(s), it behooves us to do all that we can from
within this structure, then when it is necessary move on to the next stage
of internet oversight as it progresses through its stages of
growth/evolution. And kudos to Mr. Burton in extracting positive positions
from that material, hope we get the necessary documentation. I will now
step back and continue learning.
Grácias por su attención,
Phil King in Butte
----------
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:49:53 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> Pls, forgive my absence. I have been dealing with revenue issues. I *do*
run
> a busines.
> Pls, also forgive what I am about to say;
>
> Those of us who have been involved from the early stages are very well
aware
> of the possibility of nullification, of our work. Those of us, whom have
> read the archives, know that this has happened in the past, frequently.
Many
> of us also know that parts of history is not as it appears. However, we
are
> still here, while others have opted out of the process altogether.
>
> From a personal stand-point, I don't wish to make Patrick Henry's
mistake,
> when he boycotted the US Constitutional Convention. That action only
> deprived the process of his much-needed voice. The process went on
> regardless. It was a strategic blunder, on his part, IMHO. Tactically, it
> was a mistake.
>
> Now, why do you continue to disrupt this WG with your continuous harping,
on
> this same point, like we were imbeciles? Yes, we know, we understand (or
> most of us do), and we are trying to make this WG work anyway.
>
> Will you please help us focus on the topic at hand?
>
> "We have a long way to go and a short time to get there ..."
> "Smoky and the Bandit" - Jerry Reed.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Conant [mailto:dconant@dnsga.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:15 PM
> > To: Greg Burton
> > Cc: Derek Conant; wg-review@dnso.org; dtreaty@dnsga.org;
> > subscribers@dnsga.org
> > Subject: Re: Legal Question - Re: [wg-review] Concerns
> >
> >
> > I have monitored the ICANN work groups. The problem I am
> > having with your
> > answer is that I cannot find that ICANN work groups have
> > influenced ICANN to
> > modify its policy and process for the good of the DNS. It
> > appears that only
> > ICANN representatives have chosen the agendas with a flagrant
> > disregard toward
> > any fair consensus process and work group process.
> >
> > Has ICANN or its representatives made any statement regarding
> > that it is
> > looking to modify its policy and process for the good of the DNS?
> >
> > Has ICANN or its representatives made any statement regarding
> > that ICANN is
> > looking to include international Internet constituency
> > representatives to play
> > key roles in the control and management and integrity of the DNS?
> >
> > Why are the above-mentioned questions not being addressed?
> >
> > It appeared to me yesterday that during the teleconference ICANN
> > representatives demanded that their agendas move forward,
> > regardless of the
> > lack of support for the agendas.
> >
> > Is your interpretation of support for ICANN agendas the
> > participation of 4 or
> > 5 people to represent the World on major issues affecting
> > the future of the
> > DNS?
> >
> > I believe that this working group should help ICANN identify
> > problems with its
> > self-serving policy. ICANN has its global dictatorship
> > position today, while
> > it strives to proliferate its bad policy and unfair consensus
> > process, because
> > very few understood or was willing to challenge these matters
> > until now.
> >
> > ICANN should realize that its old way of doing things by the
> > "consensus
> > process" will no longer work to control the World, especially
> > in the current
> > state of the US economy.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> >
> >
> > Greg Burton wrote:
> >
> > > At 01:23 PM 1/25/01, Derek Conant wrote:
> > > >Can you then please explain or outline for me the progress
> > you have seen
> > > >through
> > > >the work groups and where the work groups actually
> > influenced ICANN to
> > > >modify its
> > > >policy and process for the good of the DNS?
> > >
> > > My position is that we're doing it right here, right now -
> > if we can focus
> > > on tasks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > sidna@feedwriter.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|