On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> At a certain point, it just doesn't matter whether Jim Dixon has good
> arguments about the contents of the gTLD-MoU. I think we have reached this
> point.
Agreed.
> The real criticisms of the gTLD-MoU have had to do with process, not
> content. The criticisms have been consistent and multiple. Whether you
> agree with that they have merit or not is quite simply irrelevant at this
> point. Enough people are convinced that they have merit to have seriously
> endangered the gTLD-MoU.
>
> I strongly back the idea of getting more signatories. BUT I do think that
> that means getting actual companies to sign. The idea of someone having a
> guaranteed block of votes because they "represent" 500 companies is suspect
> to me.
I do get the impression that this list is used for the one-way transmission
of information: everyone writes, no one reads. As I have now said many
times ...
> In point of fact, when someone from Digital or MCI says something on this
> list, people listen because of their size and power. If EuroISPA signs, it
> will gain the same respect *within the PAB*.
EuroISPA will not sign the gTLD MOU...
> The difference between a headline that reads "EuroISPA signs the gTLD-MoU"
> and "EuroISPA signs the gTLD-MoU, gets guaranteed block of votes" is that
> the first is credible and newsworthy, and the second calls into question
> the credibility of the gTLD-MoU.
and is not suggesting any system of guaranteed blocks of votes.
The proposal is that
[1] signatories be allowed to appoint whoever they wish as
representative (possibly with the usual restrictions against
criminals, etc) and
[2] where a person represents more than one signatory, that person
should have the corresponding number of votes.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:23 PST