Re: [ga] Names Council Task Forces

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:26:04 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> No one was hoodwinked.  This is the way things are supposed to work.
>
> The sub lists you tried to create were nothing but a censorship trip
> to get subjects off the main list, and so that alt.root interests
> could dominate the discussion of alt.root interests since they knew
> that only the most vocal alt.root opponents would join,

Hi William

I am often amazed at your effrontery.  You baldly state the most arrant
nonsense in the hope that some idiot somewhere will believe what you have
said.

There were, as I remember, seven special purpose mailing lists.  Only one of
these related to Alt Roots.  The whole set was designed to cover all issues of
interest to the GA including UDRP, registration systems (whois, registrar
transfers, etc), GA rules, dot org, and DNSO review.

And, as you know, the ALT Root discussion was effectively scuppered by the
paper unilaterally issued by Stuart Lynn without debate or any form of
"conensus" building.

You will no doubt remember, I created agendas for each list and encouraged
people to develop a terms of reference for important issues like WHOIS.  The
idea was that those who were interested in a particular topic could form a
dedicated working group to debate the issues.

There is NO difference whatsoever between my sugggestion and that adopted by
the Names Council except that the NC proposal has legitimacy (as a result of
the ICANN bylaws) which you argued that the original proposal lacked.

However, the original proposal invited everybody on the list to participate.
Members with particular expertise (including yourself, Joanna Lane, Bill
Lovell and others) were invited to become Working Group Chairs or Co
Ordinators.

Sorry, Bill, the current NC version has only ONE person representing the GA on
each working group.  In three cases, that one person is Danny Younger who you
have regularly accused of running his own agenda.

I would hardly call that genuine participation be the membership of the
Assembly !!

And it's quite astonishing how you bend your argument to suit your agenda of
undermining any proposal which you think has the remotest chance of being made
to work.

Regards
Patrick Corliss



--
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