Re: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Perhaps you could be more creative, descriptive, and diplomatic in your
> language. The words "piece of garbage" really convey nothing which could
> be used as a basis for discusson.
>
> Like a point by point list of what (if anything) you agree with, and
> what you do not agree with.

  Unless I miss my guess when Danny said that it was a "piece of garbage",
that he did not agree with any part of the TF Report (v6).  At least
that was very clear to me.  Hence I found his use of "piece of garbage"
very descriptive and immediately understood what his opinion on the
TF Report (v6) is.

>
>
> I believe that logic will get you farther than simple emotion. It might
> make it possible for more persons to go into agreement with your
> position.

  I don't know if I agree with Dannys opinion or not yet.  However
again I had no trouble understanding his "Logic" with regards to his
position on the TF Report (v6).  I am a bit dismayed that you seem
to have had a problem with Dannys logic however...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)
>
> Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF
> report
> (v6) at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc
>
> It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
> IPC's
> comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO
> separately.
>
> It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.
>
> The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC
> within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
> [01.126]
> that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the
> Internet
> community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address
> Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such
> comments be
> submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"
>
> Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well
> past
> the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring
> proposals
> for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also
> looking at
> the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why
> is
> the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?
>
> Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There
> will
> be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!!
>
> This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future
> of the
> At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.
> The
> choice is yours.
> --
> 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@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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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