>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From mhsc.com!rmeyer Thu Jun 17 13:10:26 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com([199.108.175.226]) (2237 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:10:25 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from hawk (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236])
> by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA27025;
> Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:04:37 -0700
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Kent Crispin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "IDNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "IFWP Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IDNO:431] Re: GA as IDNO
>Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:04:37 -0700
>Message-ID: <000a01beb8e3$7b406fa0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Importance: Normal
>
>> No, let's not -- I don't want to waste my time on dogmatic fantasies.
>
>It is a fantasy to consider any change in direction, from the ICANN, at
>this point.
>
>> I'm interested in realistic possibilities that the ICANN board might
>> actually consider. They might consider modifying the General
>> Assembly into a special-case constituency.
>
>Cute, a constituency without NC representation. Won't fly.
>
>> They might consider an
>> IDNO constituency, though I think that the current effort is a lost
>> cause. They may consider that the general membership of ICANN, and
>> the current GA, are better places for individuals to bring their
>> concerns. But they sure as hell are not going to throw out the
>> entire structure of the DNSO and start all over again.
>
>Why not? They threw out the Paris draft. But, that's because they had
>their own pre-written draft ready to implace. The constiuency model is
>working nicely to fragment vocal opposition. Why should they change it
>now?
>
>Yes, they need to throw out the DNSO and start over because the current
>one has no consensus support. One can not have consensus by tossing out
>the stakeholder group that disagrees or by trying to steam-roller them
>into the pavement.
>
>The ICANN is a train-wreck and the locomotive has already derailed.
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
