RE: [council] attending to content and consensus
Louis, should these kind of complaints and those raised earlier by Danny
Younger be forwarded to ICANN's Advisory Committee on Independent Review?
These complaints are important to consider, but until you have all the
facts, they end up turning into numerous emails of bantering going back and
forth and waste alot of the council's time.
If not, Philip, I think that a small group of NC members should be set up to
deal with these types of complaints. Perhaps we could add this to the 2002
Business Plan. It could be small like the Intake Committee and have a
similar function as ICANN's Advisory Committee on Independent Review.
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: [council] attending to content and consensus
While there is some significance to the fact that Milton chose to resort to
his usual, ad hominem mode, let's try to focus on substance.
>* The NCDNHC has expressed solid support for
>the principles underlying the current agreement.
>We are probably the only constituency that has
>had a vote on this, and it was passed in MdR
(I assume that Milton meant "underlying the current proposal" rather than
Milton's statements are quite simply false. The working group agreed to
Sponsored,Restricted. There has been no consensus established concerning
the new constraints.
The potential problems with S,R were raised in the constituency, long ago,
but the constituency chose to ignore those concerns.
As to the points I included in my previous note, there has been no
discussion of it, or equivalent, issues. And there certainly has been
absolutely no development of consensus, much less any effort to assess it.
Milton is free to try to provide substantiation of his claim about
consensus. Perhaps his resorting to attack mode is because he knows he
will not succeed.
Dave Crocker <mailto:email@example.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464