Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

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

Jeff Nueman and all assembly members, stakeholdersor other interested parties,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Michael,
>
> I can assure you that we have been taking the rules very seriously.

  Ok than why aren't you and the TF following them as Danny, Michael,
Milton and myself have pointed out.  And not only once but several times.
Once could just be an honest mistake, but on several occasions is not
just a simple oversight of mistake.  This is at the crux of the TF method
that the DNSO NC and ICANN have terribly and inexcusably fouled
up on.  And yes, this is of course a process problem..

> The
> Registrars (and the Internet Community )have spent over a year and a half on
> this issue.  The Task Force has spent over a year on producing substantive
> recommendation and has put them forth to the community for comment.  The
> report can be found at:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021016.NCTransfertTF-interim-report.html

  And as has been stated over and over again this report is so cryptic in it's
nature as to be nearly worthless and unimplimentable..

  But the more important problems with the rules or process by which
such a report is generated or produced.  Without good process, there
cannot be a good product.  This report is testament to that..

>
>
> We are working on providing the following (as Danny Younger has pointed
> out).  I can give you my own comments (SEE ALL CAPS)
>
> (a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of
> support, TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WERE RECEIVED

  What!!!??  Have you lost you eyesight, or reading skills Mr. Nueman??!!
Surely not!  There as danny pointed out today on this thread as well as
others including myself, a number of other proposals that have been
submitted.

>
>
> (b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
> THIS IS IN THE REPORT ITSELF

  There is no single clear statement in this report of actual value as to the
particulars..

>
>
> (c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal WE
> ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON THIS.

  Ok this is fair and a good thing...  However given the gist of you comments
thus far, I am sure many will find that such comments submitted will be
overlooked just as you stated above that no other proposals have been
submitted...

>
>
> (d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
> proposal -  THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON

  The TF proposal is not possible to implement...

>
>
> (e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
> would be borne  -- THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE WE ARE SEEKING COMMENT ON.

  Again this TF proposal would be impossible in it's present form to determine
any such costs as the proposal is so vague as to belie such an evaluation.

>
>
> (f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal
>
> and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities. WE
> ARE PUTTING THIS OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEE WHAT SUPPORT EXISTS FOR THE
> PROPOSAL OUTSIDE OF THE TASK FORCE.  YOU CANNOT FIND OUT WHO SUPPORTS A
> PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU PUT THE PROPOSAL OUT.

  You last sentance/statement is here is quite correct.

>
>
> Now, this is pleas #3.  You have the report, you can read it and you can
> comment.  But if you do not provide any comments, then to state the obvious,
> your comments cannot be considered.

  The obvious has been stated already.  Your or the TF's refusal to accept such
comments is again a different matter all together entirely...

>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; ga@dnso.org; mcade@att.com
> Subject: RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules
>
> Yes - it means those of us who only follow the issue with one eye don't
> have a summary in hand identifying the issues.  Take me for example, I
> really haven't focused on this one at all.  Really.  I wish you would stop
> attacking motives and 1) take this stuff seriously and 2) play by the
> rules -- they're stacked enough as it is.
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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