Re: "stakeholders" was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 Aug 2003 at 12:18, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> 
> So its better to use the right word in the first place.  We should say say
> "people" when we mean people and not some indirect form, such as
> "stakeholder" that is capable of being misconstrued.
> 

Okay, sold.  I have no problem with using the word "people" based on the meaning 
of the US Constitution.  I have a problem with using the US Constittution as a basis, 
although it is probably the best possible construct.

If you are willing to exclude the politics from the discussion and just say "people" - 
inclusive of all peoples, then we're in synch. :)

Now, given that all people have an interest in ICANN's decision making, how do we 
go about ensuring they are able to assert themselves and have their rightful place in 
that function?

>   --karl--
> 
> [*] S.I. Hayakawa was a famous semantics expert.  (He was also, among
> other things, a Senator from California.)
> 
Yes, I remember the  Senator.:)