DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 11:10 PM
To: council@dnso.org
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 
consensus claims.


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:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>