Re: [wg-review] IDNH/O versus @LARGE

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

It would seem that this discrepancy can be solved by strong language which unequivocally states dilution is not what is
intended, and mixing it with the At Large is not intended.  Why be offended? Just correct it and move on. In otherwords take
issue with the premise not the why and by whom it was stated.

Sincerely,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 1/29/01 2:15:23 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:31:34PM -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >> This WG has not effectively sanctioned any correlation between the
> >> @Large and the IDNH/O!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >No one  said it did; that is not what the draft report says.
> >
> >"The vacuum hits the fan."
>
> Kent,
>
> Thank You.  I knew I could count on you to use somebody else's words (without credit) to make a perfectly
> pointless jibe in response to my statement.  The burden of proof is on you Kent.  But, just in case you have any
> doubts about that, let me explain.  The statement of reference is a paragraph, the very paragraph is:
>
> >"Discussions within the General Assembly, the Working Group,  and other forums on the question of a
> constituency
> for individual domain name holders reflect that while not all agree with the need for it, there is sufficient support to
> explore its establishment. "<snip>
>
> I pause here to point out something interesting.  Although the majority of the WG was against the CONSTITUENCY
> structure, Ms/Mrs.(?) T. Swineheart writes that there is "sufficient support to explore" the establishment of an
> IDNH/O.  There is an explicit association between this judgement of "sufficient support" and the WG, after all,
> they're being used in the same sentence in support of a predication.  Let me continue with the *same* paragraph.
>
> <snip>
> "...If the constituency is added, a procedure is needed to ensure that it occurs in a
> transparent manner, is representative of its charter, and that the role of the General Assembly, Non-Commercial
> Constituency, and the At Large members is looked at in relation to the individual constituency.
>
> This next statement in the paragraph is dependent upon the preceding predication in the final clause of the last
> sentence (i.e. that the WG "sufficiently" supports the establishment of an IDNH, even though the WG is mostly
> against CONSTITUENCIES).  The final thought in this sentence is: "and the At Large members is looked at in
> relation to the individual constituency."  still the same thoughts carried through falsified implicature to make a further
> statement that is wholly without basis IN ANY REALITY.
>
> I'm sure you can sort the rest out for yourself, Kent.
>
> thanks.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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