Re: [ga] Re: NCtelecon, 18 April 2000, results

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

In other words, the NC has the ability to declare, without any
supporting evidence, that any resolution that they don't like just
doesn't have consensus. With this ability, the names council's
recommendations to ICANN are simply what the names
council wants. Nothing more. Those items they agree with,
they call consensus-based. Those that they disagree with, they
claim there is no consensus (as they have done here).

I'll make this very clear: THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DNSO Listadmin" <DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: NCtelecon, 18 April 2000, results


> 
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> I was confirmed that the third meaning is the correct one.
> This of course relates to Art. VI-B, Section 2(d), of the ICANN bylaws,
> which gives the NC the responsibilty to determine "community consensus."

> "Does the NC believe that in the Internet community there is consensus
> that the initial number ...."


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