Re: [ga] which battlefield?
On 02:51 15/03/02, William X Walsh said:
>Your belief that if ICANN is just ignored it will go away or somehow
>fall is just plain unrealistic.
No I say that Lynn proposition has 50% of just being ignored.
And that in that case decisions on the future ICANN future are
already half taken, yet still missing elements and details.
Thursday, Thursday, March 14, 2002, 5:31:51 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > don't you believe the ICANN has mislead us into a lot of false problems,
> > delaying the development of the Internet?
> > If you agree with this, I would suggest you do not to try to focus on
> > reforms (others will do that very well too). Better you to focus on the
> > after ICANN, with a vision which may benefit to all.
> > Most of the people having to decide about the fate of the ICANN are not
> > interested in details, but in simple questions and responses. Will we keep
> > it or not. If yes, what reforms. If not what replacement. So the reforms
> > are only 25% of the debate and not the most important part.
> > Lynn's management by surprise consists in choosing his battle fields. At
> > Senate hearings - as at the GAC - he was/will be imposed the battlefield.
> > We are better to be trained for the proper ones than to be muddled in the
> > wrong ones.
> > jfc
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