Re: [wg-review] Multilingulaism in ICANN
At 01:23 PM 1/22/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 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)
Saying that "this needs to be addressed at a higher level" is a very
different thing than accusing me of trying to bury it. Don't you agree?
However, you create a false distinction. It's not either/or. These issues
should be addressed at a much higher level as well as this one, and no one
doubts that. This is a wonderful opportunity for you to commit yourself to
the "bottom-up consensus-building process" by supporting the discussion in
the WG, and encouraging the NC to pass the material up to the board in the
manner the bylaws envision. Surely you'd like to be able to point to one
process that actually worked while you chaired the NC, wouldn't you?
>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
This statement of yours is even more interesting, Ken. Let's review what I
said, and see how your response relates to it.
On 09:41 AM 1/22/01, Greg Burton said:
>Characterizing this as attempting to "bury" the issue is both incorrect
>and insulting....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.
You'll note that I didn't say you were abusing your position - unless your
pattern of distortion was an attempt to discredit this working group. You
didn't bother to respond to that. Rather, you state that I "perceive" that
you're abusing your position, in response to another issue entirely. That's
another distortion in itself, isn't it? Very curious.
It's also interesting that you don't deny that you're trying to discredit
this WG. Given that you're clear about participating in the WG as an
individual. perhaps it would be more appropriate to say:
"Mr Ken Stubbs, who happens to be the outgoing chair of the Names Council,
has engaged in a clearly visible pattern of distortion in order to
discredit WG-Review. He has done this as an individual, rather than as the
chair of the NC. Mr Stubbs sees no conflict between his duty as NC chair to
facilitate the consensus-building process, and his personal attempt to
subvert that process."
I would hesitate to make that statement, however, until you clarify just
what it is you intend to be doing. You can deny that the pattern exists -
but the record speaks to that rather clearly. Ignoring it won't make it go
On the other hand, if you
1. acknowledge that there might be some reason for that perception, either
due to miscommunications or intent; and
2. stop making provocative and hostile remarks
this issue will go away quite rapidly, and I'll be happily wrong about your
intentions. I'd like that very much - wouldn't you? It's your choice
entirely how this proceeds.
>doubt me if you wish about the communication gaps i mentioned above
No sane person who has followed this discussion can deny that a
communications gap exists. At the moment, it exists inside the DNSO
process. The DNSO process needs to address it. Failing to do so would be
irresponsible of us, particularly since the impetus to address the issue
comes directly from DNSO participants. I'm sure you don't mean that the NC
should shirk it's responsibility to present these issues to the board. Do you?
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html