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

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/29/01 5:03:06 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

>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. 

Just how precise? Can you cite the substantive evidence for this "precision" 
or is it another example of that obscure *consensus* model of decision-making 
and/or statement issuing?

>Obviously, you are not
>familiar with that wider context, or else you would not be making such a
>display over nothing. 

I'm familiar with the wider context... I'm just wondering what their processes are... 
I have seen no definition or process of just how these other "groups" are reaching
their *consensus*.  Perhaps you can point out what I'm looking for?

>> <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.

"Torture the syntax"?  How exactly?  What's your syntactical reading?

>>  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 believe the purport of Mr. Auerbach's last message, is that this issue has no 
place in a DNSO forum, because if it did, then the very question of the DNSO 
CONSTITUENCY STRUCTURE IS ITSELF CALLED INTO QUESTION, 
because the @LARGE effectively encompasses everyone in ANY CONSTITUENCY 
of the DNSO.  If I am wrong, Mr. Auerbach can correct me himself.

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

So it *appears*.

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

Is that the same Ronald Reagan who played in "Bedtime for Bonzo"?




Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
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