Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 16, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Andrew McMeikan wrote:

> 
> The IDNO was active, vigerous and IMO viable.  It was overtly
> unrecognized and seemed to get ICANN hostility, the responses of
> ICANN to the group killed much enthusiasm.  Now this is just from
> memory but it seemed to be "run along to a real stakeholder group".

I seem to recall the current ICANN Chair putting his support behind the IDNO 
constituency at the Santiago '99 meeting.

It would be interesting to dig up his words again, and see if he still feels 
the same way.