[ga-watchdog] Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Walsh FUD Warning...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

William and all,

  I believe that Bob sent in his "Introduction" post to the DNSO GA
list. See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00371.html
It seems to be pretty self explanatory....  And yes, many of our
members use a free internet service of one brand or another, such
as Hotmail for instance.  In fact isn't there several "Hotmail" members
on the DNSO GA list???  I believe so...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Oh sheesh, another JW clone identity (notice the writing style, free
> internet service AND it used a dallas dialup just like...JW)
>
> On 03-Dec-99 Bob Davis wrote:
> > David and all DNSO'ers,
> >
> >   Very good ideas here I think as well.  I believe as Jeff has stated,
> > and you too David, that Marks suggestion is one that should be looked
> > at seriously.  I would ask directly and politely, has the NC considered
> > this?
> >
> > Dnsipv6@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> Mark and everybody else,
> >>
> >>   I agree with you criterion that you listed (Outlined below).  But it
> >> is terribly obvious that Jonathan and I am sure some of the other
> >> "Watchdogs" along with likely, the DNSO NC either did not consider
> >> such crtirion.  I would also venture a guess, that most of the
> >> Participants would prefer and demand most likely, setting those
> >> criterion themselves in some form.
> >>
> >> David "Dude" Jenson
> >> INEGRoup-East Director
> >>
> >> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:37:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> >> skritch@home.com writes:
> >>
> >> << On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>  >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >>  >>[snip]
> >>  >> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks
> >>  >> that are
> >>  >> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got
> >>  >> nominated
> >>  >> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to
> >>  >> this?
> >>  >
> >>  >  The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks
> >>  >at AFNIC who are receiving them.  My understanding is that somebody
> >>  >at
> >>  >AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm
> >>  >(France
> >>  >time).
> >>
> >>  Thank you, Jon.  You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that
> >>  should
> >>  be documented.  This coupled with your statement below indicates that
> >>  we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least,
> >>  we
> >>  can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until
> >>  after
> >>  the beginning of the French business day on Monday.
> >>
> >>  Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing
> >>  find its way into the documented procedures.  What seems trivial at
> >>  one
> >>  time may become crucial at another;  why not err on the side of
> >>  caution
> >>  and document it anyway?
> >>
> >>  It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please
> >>  understand
> >>  my position:  Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent,
> >>  self-consistent
> >>  procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this.  Fail
> >>  to
> >>  provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn.  I strongly
> >>  believe
> >>  this, and I've seen it proved true many times.  Look at the WTO as
> >>  just
> >>  one example.  One of the main concerns the protesters have with the
> >>  WTO
> >>  is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and
> >>  doesn't
> >>  document their procedures.  Sound familiar?
> >>
> >>  I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets
> >>  the
> >>  following criteria:
> >>
> >>  1)  It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it;
> >>  nothing
> >>        about it is hidden from me.
> >>
> >>  2)  It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a
> >>  course of
> >>        action; the rules to not confuse;  the rules eliminate
> >>        confusion.
> >>
> >>  3)  It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another;
> >>  one
> >>        rule does not bring into question another rule's
> >>        appropriateness.
> >>
> >>  4)  It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound
> >>  by
> >>        the ruleset, is.  Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at
> >>        by
> >>        the participants and agreed to.  (I personally feel #1,2, and 3
> >>        are not achievable without this, as they require oversight.
> >>        This
> >>        criterion provides it.)
> >>
> >>  So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any
> >>  of these four criteria, together or in isolation.
> >>
> >>  And I'll re-assert my position:  I don't think this is an unreasonable
> >>  expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as
> >>  ICANN.
> >>
> >>  Don't get me wrong;  It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a
> >>  ruleset
> >>  that meets those 4 criteria.  But that's a different matter altogether
> >>  from
> >>  expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria.  And, even if I didn't
> >>  particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be
> >>  able to work within that ruleset with confidence.
> >>
> >>  I'd love it if we could get to that point.
> >>
> >>  >
> >>  >  [Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination*
> >>  >period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC.  Nominated candidates
> >>  >have
> >>  >until 9 pm CET to accept.]
> >>
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  Mark C. Langston
> >>  mark@bitshift.org
> >>  Systems Admin
> >>  San Jose, CA >>
> >
> > Bob Davis...
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208