RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Greg,
In order to reach an acceptable consensus in spite of the divisions
that the election clearly shown I proposed a coordination among
David Farrar, Storis Sotiropolos, you and me before any proposition
like this one.

I do regret that you did not take it into account. I have the utmost
respect for the professional positions of Roeland I happen to share,
and I must note that:

1. this WG-Review has overwhelmingly shown his distrust in the
    constituency system

2. taking advantage of the consensus for the representation of the
     needs of the individual domain name registrants a confused
     hi-jacking of this WG-Group occurred in a way described by
     Kent Crispin you just agreed with. This confusion has been
     objected and has led to the departure of several members.

3. Motion have been introduced, seconded and enacted for the
    11. [IDNH]  Center of Interest (or Working Group in Kent terms)
    in an approach that Kent Crispin has also well documented
    and you have also approved

I am therefore extremely sorry to have to oppose that motion.
All the more than my reasons to do so are the same as yours
- except on one point of consequence.

That point is that I do not accept to have to plead to get my
due, all the more near people unwilling and unable to grant it,
while I already took it. Two years of polite motions are enough.
Don't you see they pull your leg?

The mechanism initially suggested by Karl Auerbach,
applied by me and others, already in bootstrap operation and
documented by Kent Crispin gives us what is ours by right.

I consider that the document produced by Kent Crispin is the
best and the most efficient report to the NC and the BoD
about the situation developed here and through the four CI
we created together. I am glad of that because it shows that
consensus may be uncovered between opposed points of
views and urbane people.

We will document it further on, to the NC and to the BoD as it
develops, in producing professional, matter of fact, and helpful
documents. We call everyone competent interested in participating
to this effort in participating on http://idnh.org that you have edited
yourself (thank you for that).

Now, according to what I said here many time and that Kent
has underlined, our role is not to give an unique solution but to
document all the alternatives. You obviously declined the help
that David, Sotiris and I had promised YJ Park before the election
(probably because of your mail problems) I think you have enough
material to document our different positions.

Jefsey Morfin




On 18:30 15/01/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>Greg,
>
>Do I have to resubmit all the arguments against constituencies, under the
>correct headers?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Burton [mailto:sidna@feedwriter.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:05 AM
> > To: wg Review list
> > Subject: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
> >
> >
> > It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus -
> > support for us
> > to recommend a constituency of some kind here.
> >
> > Could Joanna or someone please prepare and post a clean
> > statement of the
> > current motion for inclusion of material? I believe that was Chris or
> > David's motion and the statement of differences between
> > atlarge and a dnso
> > constituency.
> >
> > Has that motion been seconded? If so, then I'd like Joop to
> > prepare a vote
> > on it. I think everyone has had plenty of time to discuss the
> > concept -
> > everything else is details of structure and implementation.
> > Perhaps taking
> > that discussion to the GA list could involve more affected
> > people, and also
> > reduce the volume here.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > sidna@feedwriter.com
> >
> > --
> > 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