DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 01:27 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>The point is clear - the gTLD registry constituency should
>include all those with pending applications that have not
>been turned down. I've made my points and you've made

Your PREFERENCE is clear.  The BASIS for it is not, since you have not 
provided one.

>I think it's very clear to all involved, and I have no desire
>to argue the point with you any longer. Much like others on
>this list, I'm going to take your advice to heart and just
>stop replying to obvious baiting and diversion.

Unfortunately this represents a common pattern in discussions on these 
lists:  Someone puts forward a position and then, ultimately, fails to 
engage in serious discussion about the implications and weaknesses of the 

The social contract for problem solving in public discussions is to pursue 
matters for group understanding.  When a participant reacts to criticism of 
their ideas by declaring that a critic is somehow at fault, the participant 
violates their part of the contract, turning the process into one of pure 
power rather than group understanding and consensus.


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

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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