Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > One might argue that since Tucows has directly benefited from the actions
> > of ICANN the same could be said of your comments.
>
> heh. Nice twist.
>
> Let me get this straight. I request fair and accurate commentary and the
> next thing I know I'm the self-serving and inaccurate one in this
> discussion. hrm.

No, you immediately started attacking Chuck's opinions based on the company
he works for and *not* the facts. And I was pointing out that the same
could be done to you. Pot. Kettle. Black.

> Try and keep your rhetoric in your back-pocket and stick to the issues.

I believe that is what I was suggesting you do instead of delving into
attacks and conspiracy theories. :-) If you want to attack people based on
the company they work for that's fine as the same can be done to you. I
personally don't see that it's very productive though.

The facts are (in my opinion of course) that Chuck is absolutely right on the
issue of consensus.

This is easily demonstrated in part by the pervasive and continuing lack
of an effective voice for individuals within ICANN. How on earth can one
honestly state or believe that a consensus of the "Internet community" exists
on ANY subject when the bulk of that community isn't afforded equal footing to
express their opinions in the form of concrete representation?

How can an organization honestly state or believe that consensus exists within
their own organization exists on an issue when they don't even bother to ask
for an expression of it?

Did the BoD ask each of the existing constituency if they were ok with
the sweeping bylaw changes, the TLD selection process formulation, the
results of that process, ICP3, the UDRP, the contiuning presence of board
squatters, etc., etc.? The answer in a word: no.

So, you asked for examples of a failure of "consensus" which I provided
previously(and do so again), and rather than address any of these you
sidestepped the issue by stating you preferred to see "the positives".

Now who is engaged in rhetoric again?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
       Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


--
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