Re: Legal Question - Re: [wg-review] Concerns

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I appreciate your responding to my comments, whereas, my comments are intended
to be productive and do good here.

Taking the DoC/ICANN matter directly to the US Court of Appeals is obviously
more sophisticated than you understand for you to make a claim that I indicate
a lack of understanding of the role of an appeals courts.

In a previous email you indicated that one of your frustrations is creating a
work plan, posting it for comment and having it ignored by the work group and
ICANN.  This is the very same point I have been raising!  This is obviously
the only way  ICANN operates.

I also listened to the teleconference yesterday and it appeared to me that any
plan or agenda that did not fit into ICANN's preconceived agenda, was wholly
ignored and shifted to the Public Comment basket.

Without any real support or work group representation, it appeared to me that
only agendas submitted by ICANN representatives themselves were pushed
forward.  No other ideas or comments were acknowledged by the ICANN
representatives.

Have matters I submit to the work group been put on any agenda or considered?
None that I am aware of.   I don't think ICANN or its work group wants to deal
with any real problems.  It appears that ICANN only wants to push forward with
its own preconceived agenda.

As for my credibility, I have no problem stating these matters as they appear
to me.

Derek Conant


Greg Burton wrote:

> At 07:41 AM 1/25/01, Derek Conant wrote:
> >For lawyers and legal experts out there:
>
> Derek,
>
> First, I would reiterate the request that material from this WG not be
> cross-posted to the ccTLD list. It's rather rude to continue doing so when
> they have requested that we don't.
>
>   I'm going to step out of "chair" mode for a moment, and make a personal
> comment.
>
> <personal>
> I hope you will take this in the constructive manner in which I intend it.
>
> Your question is both utterly out of place here and seems to indicate a
> lack of understanding of the role of an appeals court. Despite your
> comments otherwise, your continuing reiteration of claims about ICANN's
> non-responsiveness lack specifics and lack definition.
>
> Anyone who has followed this group or belongs to various other lists is
> aware that I very frequently disagree with Kent Crispin, and that our
> exchanges are not always "nice". I bring this up so that you won't think
> I'm promoting the work of some ally or buddy. I'm using him as an example
> specifically because we aren't. Kent's work - and it IS work, not just
> generalities or rote recital - lays out his beliefs and positions clearly
> and openly. He addresses specific points specifically. He cites background
> documents and history. He makes concrete suggestions. He organizes his
> material.
>
> If you want people's attention, I'd (gently, I hope) suggest that you read
> what he produces carefully, and strive to achieve the same qualities in
> your own contributions. You might start by addressing the questions you've
> been asked by members of this group with specific answers, rather than by
> making claims that "the wg doesn't want input from people who disagree".
> Rhetoric can be useful in it's place, but unless it's supported by
> specifics it REDUCES your credibility, rather than increasing it. It's my
> personal impression that your posts have been hurting your cause, rather
> than helping it.
> </personal>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
> chair
>
> 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