Re: [wg-c] Our mission

[Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>]

Eric

Viz: 2bis your reference below:

'After the ICANN meeting of the Board in Los Angeles, the WG will either
be asked to do further work or will be disbanded if the Names Council
and the ICANN Board consider that their work is finished.'

Obnviously not disbanded as consensus not reached, as agreed by chair Mr
Weinberg who is still trying to reach that elusive consensus by whatever
means is available to him. Not everyone wants Apache law. Brussels being
one area, presumably.

BTW, is it possible to ask the list admin to verify your identity (ies).
I believe this is something that should (have) be(en) done for all
participants.

Textual analysis of participant submissions to this and other groups
show you (and myself) to be one of the most divergent individuals,
sometimes writing as .org, .net, .att, sometimes .naa, sometimes .zzz,
occasionally .con.

I would submit this should be the case for all participants, and that
the full list of verified participants be substituted for the misleading
draft list drawn up in the document below by the lawyers.


Eric Brunner wrote:

> Philip,
>
> An alternative you may wish to consider is taking your views
> to a venue which is more sympathetic to them.
>
> In a strong-chair list-based working group a participation
> form such as yours (assume for the moment your recent contributions
> are so imprecise as to be incomprehensible, and in effect about
> colors or flavors of lip gloss) would have been the subject of
> administrative correction.
>
> In a weak-chair list-based working group the same conduct is subject
> to correction only through non-administrative mechanisms.
>
> For most of the period since the close of the public comment period
> on the interim report of this working group, this working group has
> been in the weak- (absent-) chair mode.
>
> Please take your work (the incomprehensible lib gloss flavor and
> color preference monologue) back to WG-B, where it originated, and
> where it seems to be appreciated on its limited merits.
>
> Thank you for reminding all of us that you are not alone in your
> opposition to any gTLD creation at present, and that a large number
> of rationals are available to support the claim that WG-C errored
> in providing an affirmative response to Charter Question #1 (1).
>
> It would be less indirect if you would argue that WG-B ought to be
> preferred by the NC, or that WG-C be subordinated to WG-B, or that
> WG-C be dissolved as a distinct entity within the NC WG structure.
>
> You might as well have offered that Charter Question #1 ought never
> to have been posed, or at least not posed to non-marks interests who
> lack the necessary qualifications to exercise judgement and form the
> correct answer.
>
> My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows
> in later mail today. You won't be amused.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> References:
> 1 The WG-C Charter
>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html