<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] To ICANN or not to ICANN
- To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] To ICANN or not to ICANN
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=GaAOINl7kptXE3IjOq5MqZNXKioA0b+43MlzBg9EnbLrWSR5FsJrR6hYhraaR+vbXqd/el48PtKZ0o5X9uvEASNjHKHcYJCpJXPzdBgmlutzxe2S9kvmI9/qYC96U9cAj6t9wYRF0SUYKzMY049EgGjLJN9Q8aJqqgB7l+LF59A=;
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are a growing number of groups and individuals that believe strongly on a different model than ICANN and the current understructure of the Internet. We have several here in the GA. (all to remain nameless lest personalities not principles cloud issues)
And I note with some history that the most credible ones seem to desire a cooexistance. Where as others zealously pound at the disappearance of ICANN and todays addressing and numbering.
Case in point is this .ewe that I ran up upon.. Why not? Why the Heck not?
I think we should view this issue with detachment and cold logic. It should be discussed as in pros and cons not personal histories and harbored resentments.
I think ICANN schould com to the table on this one with good intent.
Eric
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|