Re: [wg-b] WG-B Report -Take II

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 10:30:09PM -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 


[huge snip]

1.  None of the "consensus items" are items reflecting consensus from
this working group.  There is no record of such consensus, and in fact,
no such consensus exists on any of these items.

2.  The "agreement" item is an agreement not reached in this working 
group, and is also not a product of this working group.

3.  Nowhere in the document do you mention that ALL OF THE ITEMS YOU
PRESENT AS PRODUCTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP ARE IN FACT PRODUCTS OF A
SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WORKING OUTSIDE THIS GROUP.

In short, how dare you, Mr. Palage.  That report reads as though we,
the members of WG-B, arrived at those conclusions and agree with them.
I know that is not the case.  You know that is not the case.  The other
members know that is not the case.  The record reflects that is not
the case.

This is blatant and represensible.  

I suggest that the members of this working group submit their own
report on these matters directly to the DNSO NC and the ICANN BoD
directly, sidestepping Mr. Palage and this farce of a document.



-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA