Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> Well, let's see. Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and
> every constituency needs to have balancing forces.
Nope. That's not it at all. Simply that this constituency needs to be comprised
of all gTLD registries, both applicant, accepted, and operational (or any
combination of the three). You twisted my words.
> That's the problems with attacking people's motives, Chris. The attack is
> usually pure slander: false and malicious.
> And it has nothing at all to do with the real merits of the arguments being
> put forward.
Sometimes, perhaps. Not in this case. You're trying to divert the issue.
After 6 years of watching you do it, it's not so easy anymore. Your
viewpoint over the past few years is irrelevant to me. Your current
employer, NeuStar, biases you. My current employer, Image Online
Design, biases me. You try to deny it, or call it into question. I embrace
it for what it is.
So stop trying to divert the issue, and make a substantive retort, rather
than analogies that don't quite track, or complaints about the realities
of the situation.
> Let's check for consistency in your view:
> Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be
> entitled to vote in US elections?
Again, you're diverting the issue. This analogy has nothing to do with the
case at hand. Let's have a good reason why applicants who have paid
the fee, passed the criteria, and are, as ICANN readily proclaims,
pending acceptance can't be part of this constituency and have a voice
on the names council.
Arguing with you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's pointless, and
annoys the pig. I've made my point, you've brought up no substantive
arguments against it, so I shall move on. Say good night, Dave.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html