[governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x

[McTim]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk
> into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would
> give another and different skew.

I can do that if you tell me which ones and why.

>
> Also
>
>> NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand
>> our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be
>> considered CS members.
>
>
> NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS.
> This is an open list.

Right, I misspoke (typed).  I should have said all CS IGC Members
should be considered CS. Do you disagree?

>
>
> And irreverently
>
>
> "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel)
>
> A name is an irrelevance these days.

Then why all the heat and light around ICANN issues?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t