Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 18:03:59 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:

>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> Let's just see how Ken S. responds to these points about the > unreprsentative structure:
>
>What difference does it make, or should it make, what Ken Stubbs
>thinks about your points or anything else? Is Ken Stubbs now the
>arbiter of all opinion? 

Of course not but if one can get as many people as possible to agree
on something then that is better than trying to sideline people.  And
Ken is the Chairman of the Names Council which to me suggests it is
sensible to consider what he says and debate issues with him than
ignore him.  Of course this does not mean one should necessarily agree
on such issues.

>If you agree to that, you are agreeing that
>ICANN and its DNSO can never change, because it is Ken Stubbs and
>what he represents (CORE and ISOC) that have created all the
>problems that this WG is trying deperately to resolve.

Not everyone is of that opinion.  I certainly agree with Karl A that
the DNSO is fairly dysfunctional and I strongly support reforms which
at a minimum involve adding on an IDNH constituency, giving the GA a
more meaningful role and also a look at the weighting of votes to each
constituency.

But I personally don't have any issues with CORE and ISOC and don't
believe one can blame everything on them.  Plus if we spend all our
time on blame games we are less likely to make real progress with
consensus in the areas we do agree on.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html