[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Individual representation
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 08:18:47AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
>>> Agreed. It means the academic employees -- the academics (NOT the
>>> "academic institutions") -- are disenfranchised. Which was my point and
>>> Ellen's, and which neither of us seems to be able to put in terms you will
> The interests of a university as an institution or the university as a
> .edu name owner are wholly distinct from the interests of the academics
> who are employees of the university.
Apparently Randy's point blew right by. I will repeat it here:
>>i understand it. but it is quite irrelevant. the same applies to the isp
>>employees, the commercial institution employees, ...
> Why allow an administrator who cares
> about .edu domain policy to participate, while leaving behind the
> trademark experts from the law school, theoriticians from the school of
> government, and the protocol experts from the engineering school, to but
> a few obvious examples.
There is nothing whatsoever preventing them from participating. In
fact, they ARE participating. You aren't a member of any
constituency; I'm not a member of any constituency; Froomkin isn't a
member of any constituency; and here we are, participating.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain