[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-watchdog] Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Walsh FUD Warning...
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [ga-watchdog] Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Walsh FUD Warning...
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 02:02:37 -0800
- CC: "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>, Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, commerce <email@example.com>, "\"dnso \\\"Watchdog list\\\"\"" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DNSO Listadmin <DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org>, Elloit Maxwell <email@example.com>, Eric Menge <Eric.Menge@sba.gov>, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, james tierney <email@example.com>, "Louis L. Touton" <Louis_L._Touton@jonesday.com>, "vinton g. cerf - ISOC" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <XFMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
William and all,
I believe that Bob sent in his "Introduction" post to the DNSO GA
list. See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00371.html
It seems to be pretty self explanatory.... And yes, many of our
members use a free internet service of one brand or another, such
as Hotmail for instance. In fact isn't there several "Hotmail" members
on the DNSO GA list??? I believe so...
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Oh sheesh, another JW clone identity (notice the writing style, free
> internet service AND it used a dallas dialup just like...JW)
> On 03-Dec-99 Bob Davis wrote:
> > David and all DNSO'ers,
> > Very good ideas here I think as well. I believe as Jeff has stated,
> > and you too David, that Marks suggestion is one that should be looked
> > at seriously. I would ask directly and politely, has the NC considered
> > this?
> > Dnsipv6@aol.com wrote:
> >> Mark and everybody else,
> >> I agree with you criterion that you listed (Outlined below). But it
> >> is terribly obvious that Jonathan and I am sure some of the other
> >> "Watchdogs" along with likely, the DNSO NC either did not consider
> >> such crtirion. I would also venture a guess, that most of the
> >> Participants would prefer and demand most likely, setting those
> >> criterion themselves in some form.
> >> David "Dude" Jenson
> >> INEGRoup-East Director
> >> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:37:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> >> << On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <email@example.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >> >>[snip]
> >> >> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks
> >> >> that are
> >> >> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got
> >> >> nominated
> >> >> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to
> >> >> this?
> >> >
> >> > The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks
> >> >at AFNIC who are receiving them. My understanding is that somebody
> >> >at
> >> >AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm
> >> >(France
> >> >time).
> >> Thank you, Jon. You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that
> >> should
> >> be documented. This coupled with your statement below indicates that
> >> we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least,
> >> we
> >> can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until
> >> after
> >> the beginning of the French business day on Monday.
> >> Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing
> >> find its way into the documented procedures. What seems trivial at
> >> one
> >> time may become crucial at another; why not err on the side of
> >> caution
> >> and document it anyway?
> >> It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please
> >> understand
> >> my position: Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent,
> >> self-consistent
> >> procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this. Fail
> >> to
> >> provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn. I strongly
> >> believe
> >> this, and I've seen it proved true many times. Look at the WTO as
> >> just
> >> one example. One of the main concerns the protesters have with the
> >> WTO
> >> is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and
> >> doesn't
> >> document their procedures. Sound familiar?
> >> I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets
> >> the
> >> following criteria:
> >> 1) It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it;
> >> nothing
> >> about it is hidden from me.
> >> 2) It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a
> >> course of
> >> action; the rules to not confuse; the rules eliminate
> >> confusion.
> >> 3) It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another;
> >> one
> >> rule does not bring into question another rule's
> >> appropriateness.
> >> 4) It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound
> >> by
> >> the ruleset, is. Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at
> >> by
> >> the participants and agreed to. (I personally feel #1,2, and 3
> >> are not achievable without this, as they require oversight.
> >> This
> >> criterion provides it.)
> >> So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any
> >> of these four criteria, together or in isolation.
> >> And I'll re-assert my position: I don't think this is an unreasonable
> >> expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as
> >> ICANN.
> >> Don't get me wrong; It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a
> >> ruleset
> >> that meets those 4 criteria. But that's a different matter altogether
> >> from
> >> expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria. And, even if I didn't
> >> particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be
> >> able to work within that ruleset with confidence.
> >> I'd love it if we could get to that point.
> >> >
> >> > [Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination*
> >> >period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC. Nominated candidates
> >> >have
> >> >until 9 pm CET to accept.]
> >> --
> >> Mark C. Langston
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Systems Admin
> >> San Jose, CA >>
> > Bob Davis...
> > __________________________________________
> > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208