Re: [ICANN-EU] LA @large meeting preparation

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Subhash,
I understand your motivation which is in a way structuraldue to your
extremely interesting concept of the true cost of a DN and the true
difficulties of @large people. But at this stage Alexander is right: we
must focus on the organization of the @large constituency before
starting discussing it. We must build the Parliament house before
debating and voting. Then I will certainly second all your points.

Hoever you rise a very important point which is the very nature of
the @large Members : individuals, small corporations, etc... ???
You say that corporations etc.. are already represented. This is
true, but also are the individuals...

Obviously there is a difference between Andy M-M and Fujitsu.
Between Karl Auerbach and WorldCom. But Karl belongs to Cisco.
My feeling is that the Members and press will progressively
discriminate among individuals, as lons as Members speak
for themselves and not for their organization.

Question: should we add to the list of points any "filtering" on
@large Members? I feel not, but the question is open?

Thx for this.
Jefsey


At 21:47 13/10/00, you wrote:

>Dear Subhash,
>
> > The role of ICANN and other entities responsible for development, 
> monitoring
> > and support of the Internet must include:
>
>I think we should limit ourselves to ICANN here and exclude
>"other entities". A number of points you are raising are
>dealing with content or ISP customer service, and there
>will most probably be a lot of disagreement on these
>matters (especially the need for content rating systems).
>We probably have rough consensus that ICANN should not be
>involved in content issues, so let's leave these debates to
>other fora, or rather: let's participate in these debates
>in other fora!
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>_______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de