NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:59:02 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (520 bytes) , text/html (1052 bytes)
On 11 October 2012 23:45, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> <
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121009_multi_stakeholderism_revisited_icann_we_can_do_better/
> >
>

The flaws in Katim's article are quite numerous, but that's a different
thread.

My first instinct is probably completely in left field but I'll put it out
there anyway:

Merge the proposed group with the ISP stakeholders and call the
newly-rechartered result the "infrastructure constituency" -- which is what
I thought it should have been in the first place.

- Evan


ATOM RSS1 RSS2