RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Yes, we've been 'round this mulberry bush a few dozen times already. It is
that your spin on events is highly creative. What you call reality is what I
call a hornswoggle. I only need to say that Amadeu and friends started this
DNSO thingy. This was one of, at least two, efforts and it certainly wasn't
the "annointed" one, as there weren't any. I was involved in one of the
other efforts.

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 10:56 PM

> On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 10:14:44PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > No, it has been asked, the answer is NOT what we wound up 
> with. The answer
> > was ignored by the ICANN Bod
> 
> Nope.  That is simply not true.

To put it very lightly, I disagree. Your denial doesn't jibe with my memory
of events.

> > > The current constituencies are there because there were people
> > > who made the case for their existence.  They are ad hoc, 
> but that only
> > > reflects an underlying reality: the parties that have an 
> interest in
> > > domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings. 
> > 
> > That statement is, at best, disingenuous. The places, for 
> the current
> > constituencies, were created, out of whole cloth, by the 
> ICANN BoD, using
> > criteria that no one has been able to discern.

> Sorry, that statement has no relationship to reality.  The 
> BoD did *not*
> create the constituency structure out of whole cloth, at all.  A
> constituency structure was proposed as part of the 
> organizational design
> of the DNSO at the very first formation meeting, in 
> Barcelona, and was a
> major discussion item throughout the process -- one might say that it
> has essentially been a discussion item continuously since then. 

The only connection between that DNSO.ORG and the current organization is
the domain name that Amadeu donated to the ICANN, after the smoke had
cleared. Whilst y'all were playing the disenfranchisement game, in Barcelona
and Monterrey, Some of us were working on the proposal that I linked in
earlier. Then you guys played three-card monte with the competing proposals.
The whole mess went on to Paris, Singapore and later to Berlin. Yes, all
proposals had something about contituencies. However, every proposal had a
more flexible model then the one ICANN built. I wont mention the venue where
you played switcheroony with the DNSO.ORG proposal.

> And in fact, of course, the ICANN BoD didn't have much to do with it
> anyway -- the Bylaws provisions for the DNSO were drafted by the ICANN
> staff and legal counsel, and followed the two most popular draft DNSO
> proposals fairly closely, picking important features from each.

Let's examine this statement; The ICANN staff built the DNSO charter that
the ICANN BoD approved, yet you maintain that the ICANN BoD had nothing to
do with it?!?!?

As Greg says; *>?!?!?Boogle?!?!?<*


> > All external evidence
> > discredits your statement.
> 
> Roeland, I'll be charitable and say that you simply don't 
> know what you are 
> talking about.

I won't be as charitable and state that the statement you just made
indicates how much your logic cogs have been slipping lately. You really
ought to get that looked at.