RE: [wg-review] Adcom anomolies

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

What is ADCOM business doing here?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:33 PM
> To: Milton Mueller
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org; ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org
> Subject: [wg-review] Adcom anomolies
> 
> 
> 
> This is a formal query to the NCDNHC Adcom, from a member of the 
> constituency.
> 
> A response from the Adcom would be appreciated:
> 
> 
> At 04:02 PM 1/24/2001 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >A miscommunication is precisely what it was. Dany sent it to 
> the Names 
> >Council prior to my sending it to the list, simply by mistake.
> 
> Although the deadline was short, it was measured in weeks.  
> That easily 
> permits consultation with the constituency.
> 
> What was the reason the adcom decided not to consult with the 
> constituency?
> 
> What was the reason the adcom stated that it would not 
> forward any comments 
> from the constituency?
> 
> The constituency had just had extensive discussion concerning proper 
> process for consultation among the constituency and about consensus 
> processes.  Why was that ignored?
> 
> Curiously, Professor Milton's "delay" in notifying the 
> constituency was not 
> a short time, since it was some days between the time Dany 
> sent his note 
> and the issue surfaced on the constituency mailing list.  As 
> of that time, 
> Milton has STILL not notified the constituency.  Please 
> explain why the 
> delay was so long.
> 
> 
> >There would have been no time for a full constituency vote, 
> anyway, so 
> >Adcom would have to take responsibility for forming a 
> response. Remember, 
> >Kent, all of the Adcom members involved have been elected.
> 
> The Adcom is not an executive committee.  It has no authority 
> to speak for 
> the constituency.  In fact it has no authority to speak for 
> itself.  It is 
> supposed to focus on administrative issues for the 
> constituency, as per the 
> (interim) charter.
> 
> Having the Adcom forward something "from the ncdnhc adcom" 
> implies that the 
> adcom has some special position, in terms of offering its 
> opinions.  There 
> is nothing in the charter that authorizes the adcom to make formal 
> statements.  Please explain why the adcom believes it is 
> acceptable to make 
> formal, public statements, as a group.
> 
> 
> >On the other hand, who has complained of or opposed the 
> action? As far as 
> >I can tell, only the same four people who can't get any 
> support for their 
> >positions from the rest of the constituency.
> 
> Professor Milton, thank you for the continued demonstration of 
> professionalism and  respect.
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to have noticed just how few people 
> participate in 
> this constituency and that the *active* numbers are as few 
> for your "side" 
> as for those you so readily dismiss.
> 
> Please explain why it is acceptable to constantly berate 
> those whose views 
> you disagree with.  In particular please explain this, given 
> that you would 
> not accept similar treatment from the ICANN board (or anyone else.)
> 
> d/
> 
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html