I have not openly contributed to this group before, rather preferring to listen quietly to those among you who are so very wise (and who have much more time to devote to this very important issue.) However, I am compelled to agree with Mr. Langston and Ms. Rony. It appears that you, Mr. Palage, have not been listening to _everyone_. There certainly was no "agreement" about the 20+ sunrise proposition from which you could infer a dissent.
Nevertheless, you manipulated the facts in such a way as to convey your personal agenda, despite the truth. This group is supposed to reach a consensus. You are simply not permitted to infer one because you desire certain results. Thus, you did not do a good job of synthesizing the information. (I acknowledge you had a difficult time with this. The discussions were powerful. But your report is a poor result.)
Perhaps you should think about this and rewrite portions of your report. Then send an amended report which more fairly and accurately reflects the differing opinions of WG-B, notwithstanding your distaste for opinions that diverge from yours.
If Mr. Langston's last statement below were a motion, I'm afraid that I'd have to "second" it under these circumstances.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 10:30:09PM -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
1. None of the "consensus items" are items reflecting consensus from this working group. There is no record of such consensus, and in fact, no such consensus exists on any of these items.
2. The "agreement" item is an agreement not reached in this working group, and is also not a product of this working group.
3. Nowhere in the document do you mention that ALL OF THE ITEMS YOU PRESENT AS PRODUCTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP ARE IN FACT PRODUCTS OF A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WORKING OUTSIDE THIS GROUP.
In short, how dare you, Mr. Palage. That report reads as though we, the members of WG-B, arrived at those conclusions and agree with them. I know that is not the case. You know that is not the case. The other members know that is not the case. The record reflects that is not the case.
This is blatant and represensible.
I suggest that the members of this working group submit their own report on these matters directly to the DNSO NC and the ICANN BoD directly, sidestepping Mr. Palage and this farce of a document.
As an attorney, you must know that calling the input you have received "dissent" assumes that there is "assent". Without consensus, there are no dissenters, no assenters. There is no consensus on any proposal put forth by Working Group B.
Please prepare a report that doesn't begin with this pre-determined bias for a sunrise proposal, for exclusions.,.,.for an Internet that is trademark-driven.
Vint Cerf says that, "The Internet is for everyone".
- "Everyone" means not only The Gap but also the kids who wear Gap clothing.
- "Everyone" means not only Microsoft Corporation but also the people who think microsoftsucks.com
- "Everyone" means that there are multiple uses for the same words and names in the physical world, and the Internet has to acknowledge that reality.
Michael Palage wrote:
>I am trying to make sure that I get all the dissents incorporated into the
>Appendix of the report. The report will be posted shortly.