[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...
- From: Bob Davis <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:48:30 -0800
- Organization: INEG. Inc. VP Marketing INEGroup-West Director
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
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?
> 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:
> >> 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
> 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
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA >>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at