On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:05:57AM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> For that matter, neither was I.
>
> James Love wrote:
> >
> > I was not consulted. Jamie
Neither was I, and I don't believe anyone else was either. When
people around ICANN talk about "outreach" or "broad diversity" or
"consensus", what they mean is, "I talked to trademark and IP
lawyers from TWO OTHER COMPANIES, and they _both_ agreed with me!"
C'mon, folks. I'm all for process, but it's high time we stop
going through the motions, pointing at the car-wreck that's ICANN, and
saying, "Wow, that's horribly wrong," and DO something about it, before
power is transferred from a California non-profit corporation to an
international treaty organization. How many more incidents like the
At-Large situation, like the UDRP creation, like the Sunrise proposal,
like the denial of conensus on 6-10 initial gTLDs, do we have to suffer
through before enough people realize that something's gone very, very
wrong here, and does something to end it? Many of you are lawyers,
some of you are media, and some of you have governmental ties. All
of you have substantially more power and pull than those of us who
are simply private citizens who, for whatever reasons, threw ourselves
into the crossfire. The longer this goes on, the more difficult it will
be to undo the damage.
--
Mark C. Langston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA
