[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...
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