Kent Crispin a �crit:
> For the WMB application... we have the following submitters:
>
> ITAA -- 11000 members
> INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries
> EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world
> ICC -- 7000 members, 63 countries
> AILPA -- over 10000 members
> ISOC -- 6000 members, 150 countries
> WITSA -- International Consortium of organizations
> ECE -- New European organization just started w/ support of
> european commission
> CORE -- 85 registrars, 23 countries
> POC -- represents 200+ MoU Signatories
This means nothing. These are, for the most part, not
democratically-run organizations. We have the proof of that with the
ISOC. These organizations don't poll their memberships. There is no
membership input. One or two leaders of each is all that can be
honestly claimed.
> The process the WMP
> application came from has gone on longer, with three significant
> international meetings,
Untrue. There is no direct line from the international meetings to
the current draft. Kent Crispin cut that line by redrafting the
Monterrey consensus on his own, or with Michael Heltzer.
> ICANN will have a hard time
> justifying *not* just taking the WMB draft as is.]
The ICANN board will never accept the WMB draft because it is
contrary to the democratic principles of ICANN and its bylaws.
> 2. The Paris Draft is very much a draft.
>
> It was submitted in essentially two versions, and you, Antony, and
> others are already talking about yet more modifications.
As a democratic process, it is on-going, unlike the WMB draft which,
as the product of a small hierarchy, is static and unresponsive.
> my opinions on possible
> modifications to the Paris draft are not too important.
First you pretend to speak for a vast coalition, then, when it suits
you, you pretend to speak as an individual. What kind of DNSO can
result from a draft of bylaws written by people without moral
principles, like you?
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
