Re: [ga] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed
[individual cc's removed. If they are reading the groups they don't need
the cc's; if they are not reading the groups we don't need them.]
Please remain open to the idea that many of the functions currently under
the ICANN/IANA rubrics should be split off and handed to other groups,
either new or existing. Too many different functions under one roof
requires too great a combination of skill sets, and also creates a real
monster if it gets out of control.
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and
> feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy
> *every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the
> ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html