[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
You said originally, I think, "necessary and sufficient";
If you said "sufficient but not necessary" that's another vision.
Is the GA an overlapping or disjoint set with the DNSO constituencies? How
about the ASO, and PSO?
If it is overlapping, ie. if anyone in a DNSO/ASO/PSO group is [eligible
to be a] part of the GA, then it makes a lot of sense to say "if ICANN
member then GA member" without necessarily implying the reverse (if not,
then not). If there is any group of DNSO/ASO/PSO members who might be
ICANN members who would not be eligible to be GA members (is there?), then
the result should be different.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 08:47 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen. ICANN appears to view
> >the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary. What happens when they
> >start to charge?
> unhitch? accept other kinds of verification in addition?
More likely to be stable longer.
> but remember - for better or worse, the GA is part of ICANN.
> "we have met the enemy, and he is us".
Speak for yourself! ;>
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html