[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
At 14:23 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>You said originally, I think, "necessary and sufficient";
>If you said "sufficient but not necessary" that's another vision.
multiple things possible - I'm trying to get a feeling for the space.
it appears that some people have trouble with the "necessary" part, so it's
probably not reasonable.
>Is the GA an overlapping or disjoint set with the DNSO constituencies? How
>about the ASO, and PSO?
Certainly not disjoint with the constituencies, or I wouldn't be here :-)
same for the PSO - with my IAB membership, I'm part of the structural
underpinnings of the PSO. I think most of us are in multiple hats, or could
be if we cared to make it explicit.
>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.
I don't think there could be - nobody's proposed (AFAIK) that any person
should be barred from being a GA member because of other engagements.
If nobody speaks up in favour of excluding anyone, I'll assume that this is
the GA's opinion: Anyone can join.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
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