Fw: [council] Objection

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

it might be a good idea for either grant or marilyn to comment on these
allegations

ken
----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <mueller@syr.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: [council] Objection


> 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 should be withdrawn.
>
>