Re: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Peter this is so much garbage,

Why is it with this weighty statement I do not hear a word about the people
of VI?  Are you a what? Do you represent a ccTLD?  At least we know Danny,
but you are a what?  Who do you care about?  I assume you have invested in
IPv6 and are hurting concepts intentionally to break my Internet.

Best to you Sir de Blanc

Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny:
>
> ( In this posting I am speaking personally )
>
> Your agenda would be better served by being more diplomatic, and
> separating fact from speculation and "broad-brush" name calling.
>
> Also, I am unclear about whether you are making this, and other recent
> postings as GA chair, or as an individual.
>
> I appreciated your initial enthusiasm when you gained the chair of trhe
> GA. Your call to the Names Council `to "parcel out some of the work" to
> the GA was eloquent and passionate. I really felt a desire to be
> supportive of your new leadership.
>
> Now, I am starting to be disappointed by your lack of objectivity and
> diplomacy. The chair is supposed to facilitate consensus building, and
> be a mediator and negotiator of positions.
>
> You are not doing that anymore.
>
> It makes me sad.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:01 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; bmjames@swbell.net
> Subject: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> Part of the problem within the BC is that decisions are made without the
>
> benefit of a vote of the membership.   For example, on the "Issue
> Management
> Procedures" page of the BC website it states:
>
> "Solidarity:
> BC members shall abide by approved positions and the BC representatives
> to
> the Names Council will be required to support such positions en bloc."
>
> There was never a vote taken on this... and even if a vote were to be
> taken,
> it would not be representative of the business community as the voice of
>
> small business is not to be heard within the Business Constituency.
>
> If the BC Charter is to be re-drafted, one NC member should always
> represent
> small business, another medium-sized businesses, and the other large
> business.  This would be entirely appropriate as small and medium-sized
> businesses account for more than two-thirds of all domain name
> registrations.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the BC will never reform itself into anything more than a
>
> power-bloc that promotes the interests of Telcoms and intellectual
> property
> groups.  A few active members dominate the constituency, and have every
> reason to continue abusing their power to the detriment of the rest of
> the
> business community.
>
> During the entire time that I was subscribed to the BC mailing list, I
> never
> received one email from anyone other than Phil Sheppard, Marilyn Cade or
> the
> BC Secretariat.  There is no dialogue amongst the current members
> because
> they can't be bothered to participate.  Every three months they are
> afforded
> the opportunity for a business-paid junket to an exotic corner of the
> world,
> and that is the full extent of their involvement.
>
> When the BC reps claim that they are in consultation with the
> membership,
> they are only in consultation with themselves.  There is certainly no
> dialogue on the BC list (which, of course, is one of the reasons why it
> is
> not publicly archived).   The constituency is a sham.  It is a vertiable
>
> clone of the Intellectual Property constituency, and in truth, those two
>
> groups should be merged as they are nothing more than two sides of the
> same
> coin.
>
> While the membership roster of constituencies like the Non-Commercial
> continues to grow at a steady pace due to ongoing efforts at outreach,
> the
> membership roster of the BC shrinks rapidly.  There is no outreach, only
>
> lip-service paid to the need to involve small businesses.
>
> It is no wonder that in this environment, no small business seeks to be
> associated with the BC.  There is no possibility of involvement if small
>
> business concerns can routinely be voted down "en bloc".
>
> The BC is a cabal, not a constituency.  There have been a sufficient
> number
> of Charter violations to warrant revoking their membership in the DNSO
> until
> such time as the deficiencies are cured, and there are certainly
> questions
> with respect to lost paperwork and their handling of finances that would
>
> probably warrant an audit.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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@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