Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
It is entirely innappropriate to criticize Mr. Crispin in this matter.
In case you
had not noticed both he and Mr. Crocker have immunity from reflecting
any bias they
may have or answering for any improper posting they may make.
Every one should be happy to note that every positive suggestion for
the last two days has been met by one of these two men -- again. We had
short reprieve. With ten posts a day between them they are doing very
well. And with Mr.
Crispin refreshed after coming off his election watchdog committee post,
only contributed to three substantive changes to rules during one voting
in an election while
Mr. Crocker was busy getting his suspension overturned. (buy the way has
ever seen that happen before?).
I AM NOT CRITICIZING THESE TWO MEN, I AM CRITICIZING THE SYSTEM WHICH
ALLOWS IT TO
Would it be possible to require a tag on each post, for ease of
distinguished between a negative(against improvement) and positive(for
impovement). Ah wait there already is and it is called a "last name".
Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Dave Said...
> > 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
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