[ga-roots] Proposed Wording Changes OR Can We Get Back on Track Perhaps?

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

Hi Simon

> >infiltration and theft of the name space as being for the greater good
>
> Let me get this straight, for following the direct instructions of Jon
> Postel, and for working on Draft Postel with IANA's full knowledge (along
> with my own drafts published to complement Draft Postel), I am to be
> condemned as a criminal? This totally defies logic.

You notice Dassa regularly uses emotive language like anarchy and theft.
Of course we need to pick him up on it.  Without breaching the list rules,
of course !!

> >It would be far more profitable and constructive if we can discuss the
> >different viewpoints and attempt to find some common ground and attempt
> > to build on it.
>
> But you don't seem to want to do that. How long have you even had an
> opinion on this subject? 3 months? 6 months? You're only one keystroke
> away from a <plonk>.

Of course he doesn't want to do that, I flagged it in my first email "red
herrings" and "diversionary tactics".  I recognised it instantly because:

(1)    Dassa is a friend of William X. Walsh
(2)    He is standing in for WXW who is busy elsewhere.
(3)    Diversion is their main strategy to kill off debate.

It works this way.  William X. Walsh doesn't have to write very much -- he
just jumps in quick and posts any diversionary response.  Then everybody
goes off on a wild goose chase.

Rather than <plonk> them we have to (a) point out the diversionary tactic
(b) don't let other people get led down the false trail and (c) keep the
argument to the point.

Whilst I like your native Indian analogy, that has used up about 5 emails of
punch and counterpunch.  A false trail within a false trail.  As can be seen
by the Bureau of Internet Affairs subject header.

You promised to help me reword my motion.  For the nth time, it states:

As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
policy input to ICANN, I have asked everybody that they think that
consensus-based policy should be?  I therefore move the following policy
should be adopted by ICANN:

"ICANN adopts compliance with the relevant DNS standards as a general
principle.  It recognises that there is a likelihood of collision and/or
confusion when root operators do not comply with RFC 1591 which suggests
that there should be a "unique root zone*.  ICANN will therefore adopt
methods and measures to foster co-operation and compliance within the
industry."

It has also been pointed out privately that ICANN has already adopted
methods and measures to foster co-operation even if they are not proving to
be highly effective.  Certainly there is discussion and that may lead to
co-operation.

That could be included in the "whereas" preamble [what is that called?] with
perhaps a grammatical change to the "will adopt" phrasing in the policy
itself.

I'd appreciate any input on wording.  I could take out reference to RFC
1591or modify the wording about standards, for example.

Could I please have your proposes wording changes?

Time is short before Stockholm.  Thank you.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



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