Re: [wg-review] IDNH/O versus @LARGE

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:38:07PM -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
[...]
> But, just in case you have any doubts about that, let me explain.  The
>statement of reference is a paragraph, the very paragraph is:
 
> 
> "Discussions within the General Assembly, the Working Group, and other
> forums on the question of a constituency for individual domain name
> holders reflect that while not all agree with the need for it, there is
> sufficient support to explore its establishment.  "<snip>
> 
> I pause here to point out something interesting.  Although the
> majority of the WG was against the CONSTITUENCY structure, Ms/Mrs.(?) T. 
> Swineheart writes that there is "sufficient support to explore" the
> establishment of an IDNH/O.  There is an explicit association between
> this judgement of "sufficient support" and the WG, after all, they're
> being used in the same sentence in support of a predication.  Let me
> continue with the *same* paragraph. 

What part of "General Assembly, the Working Group, and other forums" do 
you not understand?  What part of "not all agree with the need for it" 
do you not understand?

The task of the task force is to integrate the discussion from across
multiple fora, and the discussion in this WG is only part of that total
discussion.  Theresa's statement is a statement that refers to
discussion in that wider context, not just the WG; and across that wider
context what she says is precisely true.  Obviously, you are not
familiar with that wider context, or else you would not be making such a
display over nothing. 

> <snip>
> "...If the constituency is added, a procedure is needed to ensure that
> it occurs in a transparent manner, is representative of its charter, and
> that the role of the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency, and
> the At Large members is looked at in relation to the individual
> constituency. 
 
> This next statement in the paragraph is dependent upon the preceding
> predication in the final clause of the last sentence (i.e.  that the WG
> "sufficiently" supports the establishment of an IDNH, even though the WG
> is mostly against CONSTITUENCIES).

Sorry.  The statement simply doesn't mean what you claim it means, no 
matter how much you try to torture the syntax.

>  The final thought in this sentence
> is: "and the At Large members is looked at in relation to the individual
> constituency." still the same thoughts carried through falsified
> implicature to make a further statement that is wholly without basis IN
> ANY REALITY. 

In fact, of course, the potential conflict between the atlarge and an
individual's constituency has come up *many* times, long before this WG
was ever started, and during it, and in other places.  It's a well-known
issue; Theresa would have been remiss not to mention it.  Karl's recent 
message is simply further evidence that it has been discussed many 
times in the past.

> I'm sure you can sort the rest out for yourself, Kent.

Yes.  I have.

Incidentally, the phrase "The vacuum hits the fan"  is by Ansel Adams; 
he used it to describe talking about environment concerns with Ronald 
Reagan.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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