[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:06:02 -0700, Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> The issue, as I recall, was whether your participation would be
>> predicated on support for the idea of an individual constituency.
>>From my perspective, not the "issue", but the "excuse".
>> Nothing personal about
>> that. You may also recall that I and others spoke up against excluding you from the
>> list. And correct me if I am wrong, but the end result was that you have not, in fact,
>> been excluded from the list.
>I have been "requested" to refrain from posting, by the list manager,
>under threat that I will be removed if I don't "follow the rules".
Actually, Kent, ALL non-members have been asked to refrain from
posting while the members are preparing to discuss some matters that
will be voted on soon. You were not singled out there.
>> I would think that the people who *are* sure that an IDNO constituency needs to exist
>> should be the ones to judge the legitimacy of an organization applying to ICANN for
>> recognition as such.
>I see. Thus, Jeff Williams should be the only one to judge the
>legitimacy of a Jeff Williams constituency.
The discussion legitimacy of a NEED for a constituency belongs,
perhaps, here. But which organization better meets the needs of the
people who will make up that constituency, is strictly for those who
are working for such a constituency. Someone who opposes the
recognition of such a constituency has no place being involved in
which structure is the most appropriate for becoming that
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.