[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:58:06PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>We know you seek to do anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs,
>Bob. After all it would cause a depreciation in the value of your ccTLD
>But your comments here are simply false.
>This report IS a report of the Workgroup. It summarizes the findings of the
>workgroup and does an excellent job presenting the points of rough consensus as
>well as the points of contention.
"Report *of* the Workgroup" is vastly different than a "report about
>It is interesting to note that only yourself and another latecomer to the
>workgroup C progress objected. I think that alone shows that indeed this
>report IS a valid report of the workgroup.
Please note that I also objected, and I can neither be labeled a
"latecomer" nor can I be accused of being willing to do "anything to
delay and block introduction of new gTLDs."
What I am concerned about is the absolute procedural incoherence in
WG-C. Previously we have gone through formal "consensus calls" and
posting for public comment. Now, suddenly, those procedures are
unnecessary, and tossed by the wayside.
Since I argued against application of some of those procedures, perhaps
I should be grateful about Jon's sudden change of heart. But I'm not.
The contrast in procedures between earlier work and this last effort are
rather stark, and, in my opinion, seriously undermine whatever
credibility this process may have.
Was the report approved by a vote? No. Was any other process for
affirmation agreed to? No. Was the report posted for public comment?
No. Was the report posted for comment on the list? Yes, but with an
extraordinarily short time limit. Was the report a group effort, with
input from multiple members of the WG? No -- it was the work of one
person, working privately.
It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary".
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain