If I were a foundation with good cause that fit into ICANN's purpose, I
give a dime to ICANN because they show no signs of fulfilling their
the other hand I would fund the GA because they are trying to fulfill
mission. I like Bruce James' Idea except for control. If all of the
ICANN were trying to be fulfilled money would not be an issue.
What would happen if the threatened non-com party just said to hell with
lost their voting rights and went home. Probably not their loss but
ICANN's. In history a bunch of dudes said they were a lost cause anyway
capture. Once again I wax sentimental and emotional, - I like those
their mission, except for some guy who kept ruining it, they moved
business and were very informative in Melbourne. Who was the guy, I will
describe him as due to my irritation it would be deragatory at best.
No-- Funding is not ICANN's problem , - the reason they cannot get it
is. Give me
one week with the non-coms and I will get them funding!
With best wishes to all the wonderful folks in the non-com.
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Chuck and all DNSO GA Participants,
> I cannot find any fault in any of your comments or statements below
> as stated. However I hope that you understand that some of the
> constituency groups are in effect paying the DNSO for accreditation
> so as to remain keeping their voting rights. A better funding model
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