[wg-review] Adcom anomolies

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

This is a formal query to the NCDNHC Adcom, from a member of the 
constituency.

A response from the Adcom would be appreciated:


At 04:02 PM 1/24/2001 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>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.

Although the deadline was short, it was measured in weeks.  That easily 
permits consultation with the constituency.

What was the reason the adcom decided not to consult with the constituency?

What was the reason the adcom stated that it would not forward any comments 
from the constituency?

The constituency had just had extensive discussion concerning proper 
process for consultation among the constituency and about consensus 
processes.  Why was that ignored?

Curiously, Professor Milton's "delay" in notifying the constituency was not 
a short time, since it was some days between the time Dany sent his note 
and the issue surfaced on the constituency mailing list.  As of that time, 
Milton has STILL not notified the constituency.  Please explain why the 
delay was so long.


>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.

The Adcom is not an executive committee.  It has no authority to speak for 
the constituency.  In fact it has no authority to speak for itself.  It is 
supposed to focus on administrative issues for the constituency, as per the 
(interim) charter.

Having the Adcom forward something "from the ncdnhc adcom" implies that the 
adcom has some special position, in terms of offering its opinions.  There 
is nothing in the charter that authorizes the adcom to make formal 
statements.  Please explain why the adcom believes it is acceptable to make 
formal, public statements, as a group.


>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.

Professor Milton, thank you for the continued demonstration of 
professionalism and  respect.

Unfortunately, you fail to have noticed just how few people participate in 
this constituency and that the *active* numbers are as few for your "side" 
as for those you so readily dismiss.

Please explain why it is acceptable to constantly berate those whose views 
you disagree with.  In particular please explain this, given that you would 
not accept similar treatment from the ICANN board (or anyone else.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464


--
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