[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> >WG A comprised members form each and every consituency (many of them, in
> fact)
> >except for the gTLD Consituency. Their choice, btw. They had not complained
> >abut it (how could ehty?) they have comented the drafts, they have taken part
> >in the vote and htey have submitted comnets and partially dissenting
> opinions.
> >All rahter regular, nearly boring.
> >
> >Oh, God, how difficlut must be spending the summer hunting for
> conspiracies ;-
> Amadeu:
> You are simplifying the problem with your last sentece.
> I'm not in any conspiracy and I think that the decision about the WG-A
> report should be reconsidered.

Sure I am. But the multiple postings here were not about the merits of WG A or
the meits of the DNSO reocmmenadtions. Even not on the consensus or lack
therof. We were discussing such things as "bylaws compliance" (no rep form
gTLD....but they decided not to appoint anyone; no rep form
non-comencial...when the consituency has not been yet approved, and some fo
the "rpotopromoters" were heavily involved;....). This is not at all the core
of the question and yes, I indulged in oversimplifications and irony in answering.

I am not the one accusing anyone to take part in a conspiracy. I was trying to
show that the kind of accusationsthat were thrown to thwe works of the WG A
and the pNC were thin air. That there was no conspiracy behind them.

The fact remain that there are much more serious issues tnan the ones we have
been discussing today in this list. Randy addressed some (even if in a rahter
rhetoric way, IMHO).

Nos vemos en Santago, Raul.