[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
- Subject: Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:29:17 +0100
- Cc: members-meeting list <members-meeting@egroups.com>, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@imv.au.dk>, icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012051519520.5398-100000@p2.cavebear.com>; from karl@cavebear.com on Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:24:54PM -0800
- Mail-Followup-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>,members-meeting list <members-meeting@egroups.com>,Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>,Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@imv.au.dk>,icann-europe@fitug.de
- References: <3A2D8043.12869.176A2E1@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012051519520.5398-100000@p2.cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
On 2000-12-05 15:24:54 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> To my mind, these ancillary benefits are so incredibly valuable
> that the possibility of indirect elections should not even be
> considered.
When are these benefits going to materialize? I don't think there's
a point in fiercely defending some virtual benefits which aren't
going to be there any time soon, if this, in turn, implies that the
board may arrive at a point where "no consensus" is a correct
description of the opinions around.
Also, as Roberto already pointed out, you still have to answer the
question how you believe that a _mixed_ model (elect 5 directors
directly, and 4 of them indirectly) jeopardizes these benefits.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>