Re: [wg-review] who is a legitimate member of this list?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Chris,
your position is OK, but probably not workable.
IMHO NC people came in. OK. Let them be polite and all of them to come.
They want a consensus.  A consensus is when no one says "no" anymore.
So it will be a statement all NC members and all of us cannot oppose (we 
will not obtain that if htey want to impose anything on us).

That was ther choice. They wanted our reponse and they wanted to manipulate 
it.
OK Let manipulate them.
If all the NC are here, we are the NC and our Chair is the defacto NC Chair.
If some of the NC are here, we still are the NC, but
- either some of the NC show their disinterest in the NC, are losing 
credibilty and should be  replaced.
- or some of the NC oppose this method and BoD demands, and should make it 
clear in resigning.

Up to them to decide.

Jefsey

I note that Karl Auerbach was just bout doing the same mistake, but has 
removed himself from the debate for 4 days. So we may assume his initial 
involvement was more a testimony rather than a participation.


On 14:31 04/01/01, Chris McElroy said:
>That is the correct question. Miss Park has tried to get a Co-Chair Elected
>to represent the members of this list. Members of the NC are on the list
>that is to make recommendations to the NC? And are the ones suggesting we
>not have a Co-Chair or extension of time? How ridiculous is this. The
>members of the NC are the ones trying to control this process and get a
>recommendation they want drafted. They are not seeking valid public opinion
>or concensus at all. It's easy to see what the agenda is.
>
>Short deadline. Be on the list so we can decide how they should vote and
>what they should vote on.
>
>That isn't any form of democratic process and not one that will produce a
>report of any substance and that is exactly your intent. It is my suggestion
>that members of the NC go back and wait until we have a report and it will
>be submitted to you when it is properly discussed and ready for you. If not
>you undermine the very reason this WG was created. You undermine the
>democratic process you pretend to be undertaking here.
>
>There is a serious conflict of interest when there is even discussion of
>whether or not there is a need for the NC at all and you sit on the NC. This
>whole process stinks. It's mass confusion and as long as you keep it that
>way you can maintain status quo. Stubbs are you wending yet? Let us do what
>this was created for and quit interfering with this process. There are going
>to be eyes on this. That of the media and the public. You so afraid of
>something turning against the way things are now that you refuse to allow us
>to discuss the issues? Is it your purpose to disrupt these proceedings then
>pretend to have sought public opinion?
>
>IMO opinion gentlemen of the NC, it is not IDNOs, @Large Members, or GA
>members that are posting off topic and disrupting these proceedings, it is
>you. Whether or not anyone on this list understands every technicality you
>hold so dear is of no consequence. Whether the rights of Individual Domain
>Holders and Users of the Internet is represented is the issue whether you
>choose to recognize that or not.
>
>I apologize to  those who represent ccTLDs and sTLDs if it sounds like I am
>not recognizing your concerns as legitimate. Far from that I support your
>efforts 100% and know you can speak for yourselves. My interest lies in
>fairness to individuals which is long overdue.
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>http://www.VirtualAdFirm.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Sondow" <msondow@iciiu.org>
>To: "DNSO Review List" <wg-review@dnso.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-review] who is a legitimate member of this list?
>
>
> > Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > > This WG is supposed to be DNSO review. Am I making the incorrect
>assumption
> > > that all participants in the list are or should be  DNSO constituency
> > > members?
> > >
> > > Are there any "qualifications" required to participate?
> > >
> > > What are the rules?
> >
> > Why are you asking, Mr. de Blanc? Are there some contributors whose
> > posts you don't like, and you think to use some "rules" to have them
> > eliminated?
> >
> > Perhaps it is you who don't belong on the list, since you are a
> > member of the NC, which is supposed to receive the wg's report, not
> > write it.
> >
> > M.S.
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>--
>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

--
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