Richard,
You are, of course, assuming that it is NOT the intention of ICANN to
divide the interested parties and dilute the impact of the discussions.
Fractionalization dilutes power, and that is not lost on ICANN.
Gene...
+++
Hi Richard J. Sexton, you wrote on 6/26/99 2:40:31 AM:
>In the names council meeting today, a motion was made seconded and carried
>that the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list should be the general expression
>of the general assembly of the dnso.
>
>Also, the point "we need greater outreach" was made by half the
>names council interim members. Some said it 3 and 4 times. Many
>others said it as well.
>
>The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 53 members.
>
>The IFWP list has 156 members.
>
>Now, I've been taking part on mailing lists about domain names
>and especially new domain names since before the NSF directed
>NSI to start charging for domain names roughly 4 years ago
>and in my experience the hardest part of this whole process
>has been to keep people in one place on one list.
>
>Originally there was one mailing list about new domain names,
>now there are about two dozen. This fractialization is
>counter producive and impedes forward movement.
>
>Moreso, the name of the list is less important than
>the community the list is and represents.
>
>So, it seems to me a better idea that declaring
>the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as the regular expression
>of the general assembly of the DNSO would be to
>use the IFWP list for that purpose; it may take months
>or perhaps even a year to get the dnso list to the size
>the ifwp list.
>
>Are there any reasons why this shouldn't be done ?
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern
>ourselves."
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
