Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" (ICP-3)

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Mr. Crispin,

In reading on this matter I find a curious lack of history.  By this I mean Mr.
Lynn and Mr. Sims jump right to the conclusions of this is what it is.  Generally
we would have located within a position paper the How and the Why. For instance
would it be fair to say;  "Somewhere between the time of 1998 and today's date it
was determined that the At Large would be made ineffectual and that a majority of
the BoD would not be elected. During this same time period it became custom that
Staff determine policy and only let public comment be made upon it.  The result
is the current policy which I have determined is a fact."

Would it also not be fair to say that although bottoms-up consensus is required
on these matters of Policy the BoD and staff have developed these policies in a
very top down non transparent manner?  If the policy cannot be explained in
manner consistent with the MOU, Contract and White Paper then you may say it *is*
the policy but you cannot say it is the *ligitmate* policy.

I am finding it very curious that in order for Nations to join the WTO they must
be very transparent and yet to run the world wide web transparency is not only
lacking but shunned.  How can it be justified to say if you don't like my top
down policy you must change it from the bottom-up.

Oh and by the way- per Mr. Sims' economic allegation, my position is against my
economic interests but in keeping with fairness, I would prefer he not project
his values upon us dot commoners. Here is an area where Mr. Sims' could learn a
great deal from Mr. Younger.

Sincerely,
Eric


Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:46:36PM -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Milton Mueller's first comments on Stuart Lynn's revised draft, and the need
> >for a working group:
>
> You should also note Joe Sims' reply:
>
>     Milton, not only are your views minority, but your characterizations
>     and facts are wrong.  As Stuart described in detail in the original
>     draft, and at the public forum meeting in Stockholm, this is a
>     statement of existing policy, not an attempt to change policy or
>     create new policy.  You are free to disagree, but for some reason it
>     appears that the only way you know how to disagree is to attack the
>     motives of the other side.  This is not an effective technique, and
>     may at least partially explain why you are so often in the minority.
>     In addition, the Board in Stockholm authorized Stuart to finalize
>     and publish this document as a statement of existing policy; perhaps
>     you were out of the room.  If you disagree with the policy, feel
>     free to seek to change it; all you have to do is to convince enough
>     others so as to generate consensus support for your position.  FWIW,
>     I think this would be a challenge on this particular subject, where
>     it appears that the vast majority of those in the community who do
>     not have adverse economic interests agree with the current policy,
>     but you are certainly free to try.
>
>     Joe Sims
>     Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html