RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 09:25 PM 1/15/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Greg,
>In order to reach an acceptable consensus in spite of the divisions
>that the election clearly shown

If you truly believe the co-chair election was about an agenda, you are (as 
far as I'm concerned) mistaken.

>I proposed a coordination among
>David Farrar, Storis Sotiropolos, you and me before any proposition
>like this one.

You proposed a co-ordinated work plan. Any other conclusion you drew was 
inappropriate.

>I do regret that you did not take it into account.

I requested that each of us take a section of the questions and turn them 
into a poll for expedient reporting. Sotiris did so. You did not.

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

That is premature at this juncture, and I WILL NOT make that assumption 
based on the data currently in hand. I would prefer direct election of the 
NC, but that does NOT mean I will make some kind of claim about this 
group's desires or beliefs without both substantive documentation and the 
agreement of the group.

>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.

No one has hijacked anything.

>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

No motion has been enacted - I have requested it be put to a vote. Nor has 
any motion been called the "statement of the group", the "consensus" of the 
group, or any other such term until it has been voted on.

>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?

Jefsey, you have created some web sites. Period. Apparently you have very 
little faith that a serious process here could have significant results. 
You're welcome to that opinion - I don't share it.

>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).

Jefsey, I edited the page and sent it back to you because you were making 
outrageous claims of group support for issues that had never been 
discussed. You're welcome.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to get done tonight.

Greg


--
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