[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Fw: wg-c rules
Dennis and all,
It should also be noted that the DNSO pNC has had a very bad
history of accurately archiving the actual posts to the Discuss@dnso.org
as well as to the email@example.com. As such Dennis, don't feel surprised
that the call for inclusiveness and proper archival of wg-c posts are
"Mysteriously" ignored or missing. A good documentation exercise
is to review the archives of the Discuss@dnso.org for further details...
> Hi WG-B
> I don't know why, but for some reason, this post has never shown up on WG-B's archives.
> In addition, a second message posted the same date, cc'd to Michael Palage has also not shown up, though
> Michael has confirmed that he received his copy.
> I am very concerned that WG-B is calling for people to volunteer as co-chair by tomorrow, with numerous onlookers
> requesting diversity. But my postings are not even reaching the group.
> Can someone please cancel this deadline, and report to the working group and DNSO to verify whether
> feedback and postings from members or potential members is actually being received, but not posted?
> Dennis Schaefer
> Member of the Cyberspace Association -- the Individual Domain Names Owners Constituency
> > Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 00:16:33
> > From: 109irb81drr1
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: wg-c rules
> > Hi all -- a plea for inclusiveness ...
> > The Names Council last week discussed a change in the way that WG-C will
> > operate. There will
> > be two classes of participants: those from recognized constituencies, and all
> > others. The intention is
> > apparently to control contentiousness within the group. (Javier mentioned an
> > example of non-responsive comments such as 'We shouldn't be doing this at
> > all.')
> > While we're waiting to receive the charter from Jonathan, I'd like to make a
> > plea that we not adopt this approach in WG-B.
> > I am a member of the group that is seeking recognition as the Individual
> > Domain Name Owners constituency. While I have no way of knowing whether or
> > when we will achieve recognition, I feel that my perspective as an individual
> > needs to be a part of WG-B. Relegating my perspective to background status
> > would not diminish the acrimony that this list has seen so far (and which I
> > unequivocally condemn).
> > I was the first person to post comments on WIPO Section 4, and in those
> > comments I advocated that we obtain a legal analysis as part of our activity.
> > While I don't think that remark should be construed as "We shouldn't be doing
> > this at all," let me take this opportunity to state that it definitely did
> > not. I agree wholeheartedly with the House Oversight Committee member who
> > characterized ICANN as a "grand, fascinating experiment." We in WG-B have the
> > opportunity to make this group a model for consensual decision making and a
> > small victory for ICANN itself.
> > The French writer Andre Gluyksman (sic) posits that the challenge of
> > democratic decision-making is
> > to recognize that every decision generates negative impacts, as well as
> > benefits. By extension, we as individuals on WG-B need to recognize that
> > whatever our position is on WIPO 4, we must take responsibility for the
> > negatives that our point of view will produce, and temper and test the final
> > decision by that type of analysis. I think we have the ability to control
> > some of the acrimony by affirming a
> > group commitment to that ideal.
> > Thanks for listening!
> > Dennis
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> email@example.com. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208