Re: [ga] W. Walsh FUD Clarification WasTHIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

David and Ll DNSO'ers,

  Quite right David, and thank you.

Dnsipv6@aol.com wrote:

> William and everybody else,
>
>   William, I think you might want to brush up on your header evaluation
> skills somewhat.  Bob's dial in, in no way is the same as Jeff's, or mine
> or Brian's, or...
>
>   I believe the Bob also clarified or attempted to, for
> most specifically your edification as I told him in a phone conversation
> to expect some Yadda from yourself and likely Ken Stubbs.  That seems
> to have come to pass.  Bob's "Introduction" post clarified this quite
> nicely and In a very exacting way so it would be simple for you or Ken
> to comprehend.  Or so he thought, as did I.   Your continued attempts
> to intimidate anyone from INEGroup or anyone that is disagreement
> with you, not withstanding, as Jeff would say..
>
> David "Dude" Jenson
> INEGroup-East Director
>
> In a message dated 12/3/99 12:54:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, william@dso.net
> writes:
>
> << 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...
>  >
>  > __________________________________________
>

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html