<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism in ICANN
Greg....
i agreed with and supported Pilar's multilingual position when she
stated it and feel very strongly that these issues need to be dealt with
BUT on a MUCH HIGHER AND MORE ENCOMPASSING plane than just this WG...
(again...my personal view)
i am a participating member of this wg and NOT acting in any position other
than that. i am also a member of the NC but there are 19 of us and i don't even
set the agendas for the meetings. (it is done by an intake committee of which i
am not even a member). how you can perceive this as an abuse of my position is
interesting
my comments more closely related to those expressed also by roland meyer on
the subject of this toipic. in addition , i feel that the agenda set for
this teleconf is so ambitious as to make it difficult to come away with any
concensus based on meaningful and substantive teleconference dialogue due
strictly to the time alloted for the conference and the materiality of the
issues to be taken up.
i was principally concerned that this issue not be "buried and done with"
in just this WG. The multilingual problem, in many ways is one of the KEY
CRITICAL problems which leads to so many of the communication
breakdowns so common to the ICANN process.
doubt me if you wish about the communication gaps i mentioned above but
look at the problems in the scheduling of this conference and the most recent
e-mail interaction between you and YJ regarding the agenda and you can see why i
am so concerned.
ken stubbs
(who is still somewhat confused because he received less than 1 days notice
for a CRITICAL teleconference whose original time yet again may have
already been informally changed ?????)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:41
AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism
in ICANN
At 06:03 AM 1/22/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:
i agree with your agenda and am very
disappointed that the wg review
chairman has elected to try to "bury"
these important issues in the context
of a DNSO review discussion when
this problem clearly exists throughout the
entire ICANN structure
(including all SO's) .
I beg your pardon, Ken? I didn't
choose to bring this discussion into WG-Review - the members of this Working
Group did. Neither have I nor anyone else ever indicated that this is the only
place it should be discussed. Pilar brought the issue up in this WG, and there
was an extremely strong sentiment for discussing it here. In response to that
interest, and in support of your post, I brought it forward in the
agenda, asked Pilar to summarize what had been discussed, and intend to treat
the matter with the seriousness it deserves.
this is a serious
mistake
"The outgoing chair of the NC believes it is a serious
mistake to respond to the concerns of the members of WG-Review." So noted.
bringing this issue into the
wg-review is, in my opinion, beyond the
mandate and charter of this
WG and will only tend to diminish the importance
of this issue as it
pertains to ALL ICANN activities, not just DNSO.
That's a
curious position, for two reasons. The first is that Pilar brought this topic
up here in a serious way, and you say that you agree with her agenda. That's a
contradiction. Secondly, the topic is addressed directly in the draft report
of the Task Force. To quote:
"The DNSO should seek
to continue efforts increase to ensure global participation for all. Some
recommendations to help achieve this objective have been under discussion
during the review process"
The reference to supporting documents
in the draft report cites this Working Group's discussions. Perhaps you need
to take this up with the Task Force, who clearly believe that this is an
appropriate topic for DNSO discussion and efforts.
Characterizing this
as attempting to "bury" the issue is both incorrect and insulting. I'm getting
a bit concerned, Ken, about the nature of your participation, so please help
me understand it. First you challenged the poll questions on constituencies,
claiming the NC would want to know which constituencies the respondents belong
to. You ignored the fact that the questions came from a Names Council task
force. Then you attempted to discredit my decision to not join an existing
constituency, even though it is based on an agreement with a statement of
yours. Now this claim of attempting to bury the multilingual issue, when it
has been brought forward in response to both working group interest and your
post on the subject. Is this really appropriate behavior on your
part? One might draw the conclusion that you're trying to
interfere with the WG, and discredit anything that emerges from it. If that
description of your motivation is incorrect, please let us know exactly why
you're following this easily discernable pattern of distortion. If it is
correct, perhaps you might wish to explain to the board why you need to abuse
your position on the NC to do
this.
Regards,
Greg
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|