[council] Objection

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

On behalf of the GA (which awaits the election of its representative to the 
.org Task Force) and as a member of the BC, I most strenuously object to the 
comments put forth on the NC-ORG list by Grant Forsythe that purports to be 
the input of the BC.   

This document  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/doc00001.doc
is described on the BC website as:

"Discussion paper on dot org now in circulation:
The paper, authored by Philip Sheppard, was submitted to the membership for 
discussion on 8 August.  The paper will be published as a BC Position on 21 
August if there is no opposition, ie, ten working days."

This "input" is not an approved constituency position and was submitted to 
the NC list well in advance of approval by the BC membership (most of us not 
even aware of the existence of this document as notification has not been 
provided to all BC members).  This document did not exist on the former BC 
website, and the new BC website has only been operational for one day, 
thereby invalidating the timeline for comment cited above.   

If the website offered an input field that allowed for comments to be made 
and archived, then we might agree that a consensus of sorts is emerging.  In 
the absence of any transparency, however, this document cannot be endorsed as 
the input of the BC;  it is no more than the personal comments of Phil 
Sheppard forwarded by Grant Forsythe. 

Perhaps Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Forsythe would care to inform this body as to 
which SMEs were consulted regarding this  "substantive policy work item".   
Putting foward that which purports to be a constituency position paper on 
.org without outreach to the small and medium sized businesses that are 
allegedly a part of the BC is worse than disingenuous, it is fraud.

Unless, like Mr. Lynn, the BC chooses to declare a discussion paper to be 
approved policy without the benefit of true constituency input, this document 
should be withdrawn.