RE: [council] Internal Matters and NC's responsibility
I am simply saying that there are two sides to every story and that the most
effective way to handle such disputes is not by the sending of numerous
emails to the council list, but rather through a process such as I suggested
in my earlier email where both sides can be fully and fairly heard.
Speaking as a lawyer, all the emails I have seen aren't very helpful until
I sit down and get all of the facts, and a piecemeal approach through such
emails is not very efficient.
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Internal Matters and NC's responsibility
To pursue the NCDNHC process-related matters, separately from the concerns
about the current .org proposal text:
From: "Chicoine, Caroline
>In fact,Milton's responses suggest that there is more to Mr. Crocker's
>emails "than meets the eye."
Caroline, indeed, impugning intent and attempting to slander those with
whom one disagrees is a common technique for some participants in the ICANN
world. After all it is often easier and more successful than doing the
real work of defending the substantive matters once is advocating.
Although the purpose for my original posting was to focus on content in the
proposed text, I felt it necessary to explain why I was posting a note
directly to the council. That bit of explanation appears to have opened a
badly festering sore.
Please note Vany's observation:
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>Agree with you YJ.Just for clarify: 1. A constituency member sent a valid
>complain2. A Names Council member from such a constituency instead of
>proposesomething contructive, for example, an offering to review
>ourprocedures, what tried to do was to disenfranchise in the Names
>Councillist the credibility of such a person, who, by the way is a
>personthat colaborated very near in several works and research regarding
>DNSand is a respetable person amongst the ones who works about technical
>issues of the DNS.
I encourage the NCC to consider seriously the question of representations
made to the NCC purporting to be on behalf of a particular constituency. I
have no experience with any constituency other than the NCDNHC, but have
noted the complete lack of any real controls to the constituency input
In the case of the NCDNHC, a simple audit of the constituency records,
including its mailing list, will show quite clearly that the NCC is
receiving representations about constituency consensus that cannot be
substantiated, except to show that the representations are incorrect.
Again, I encourage folks to skip past the vigorous efforts at ad hominem
Focus instead on the real issues -- in this case, validity of constituency
ps. To the extent that anyone feels inclined to wonder about my own
background, please feel free to peruse the web page cited below.
Two tidbits not in those pages:
a. A peculiarity of timing meant that an Internet standard that I
edited, RFC 822 for email, was the first published standard concerning the
DNS, namely the syntax of a domain name string. The actual DNS
specification was published shortly afterwards.
b. I initiated the the BIND "renovation" project -- for which
Paul Vixie has done wonders over the last 10 years -- back when we both
were at Digital Equipment Corporation.
Dave Crocker <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464