[wg-review] Re: Second Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

A miscommunication is precisely what it was. Dany sent it to the Names Council prior to my sending it to the list, simply by mistake. Dany explained this at length in an earlier message. 

There would have been no time for a full constituency vote, anyway, so Adcom would have to take responsibility for forming a response. Remember, Kent, all of the Adcom members involved have been elected. On the other hand, who has complained of or opposed the action? As far as I can tell, only the same four people who can't get any support for their positions from the rest of the constituency. 

Dany explained a long time ago that he abstained from the vote for the Review WG because he did not think it gave the group enough time. YJ also expressed this opinion, as did I. Our position was no surprise, and not even new.

But let's make a call again. Is there any member of this list who supports the Names Council's deadline of January 15 for the DNSO Review Working Group? Aside from Crispin, Crocker and wonderfully sincere upholders of non-commercial interests? 

>>> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> 01/24/01 10:38AM >>>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 04:44:29PM +0800, YJ Park (MINC) wrote:
[...]
> Regarding this DNSO Review process in the non-commercail constituency,
> AdCom members, myself, Dany and Vany clearly expressed to you and
> our constituency that AdCom's position was delivered to Review TF
> without pre-circulation in the list with apologies due to miscommunication.

There is no possibility that it was merely a "miscommunication".  The
constituency had just gone through a major discussion of procedures for
resolutions.  And the claim that the message was "just from the adcom
and not really the position of the NCC", and thus didn't need to be
circulated to the constituency is basically an insult to our
intelligence.  

The whole purpose of that message was contained in the last two line,
where it says

"Please accept this as our only official response to the Questionnaire.
 For the last, NCDNHC requests NC to extend working group's deadline."

That is, YJ, when the matter concerned YOUR ambitions for the working
group, the rules we had just spent weeks arguing about were simply
ignored. 

> And then as you know that has been circulated to the members.

Nonsense. It was circulated by *me* when I found it on the Names 
Council archive.  To say I was amazed that the Adcom would do such a 
thing is an understatement.

It is true that the Adcom sent abject appologies to the constituency. 
What else could they do? They flagrantly broke the rules that we had
just spent weeks arguing about.

> Therefore, please withdraw using non-commercial constituency
> as a bad model which can mislead the Board or the public who really
> don't have any specifc details or background on this.

If they had more details and background the point would be even
stronger. 

[...]

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: mueller@SYR.EDU 
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1732M@lyris.isoc.org 



--
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