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

[ga] Nice try, Jeff.


Nice try. 

I am afraid that this other-self of yours is already well known.


At 16:40 7/08/99 +0100, Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>Mr. Sola and Everyone,
>  Mr. Sola, please discontinue you endless diatribe of false statements
>other comments such as this one.  The are obviously transparent, and
>only serve
>to discredit yourself, and any reasonable DNSO effort.
>Javier SOLA wrote:
>> Anthony,
>> >However there seems to be no problem for the NC to impose a UDRP on the
>> >entire world with barely a nod to looking at whether this achieved any
>> >consensus within the General Assembly, which is the yardstick by which
>> >recommendations should be measured, according to the the DNSO bylaws.
>> Following the procedure established by the bylaws, the report has been made
>> public in the DNSO website for comment by anybody who wishes to do it. The
>> truth is that we have not seen many comments (the ones received have been
>> taken very seriously and the most relevant opposing comments are attached
>> to the report).
>> It is easy to complain about lack of consensus. It would be much more
>> productive to actually participate in the process and comment on the
>> documents instead of figuring out new ways to meausure consensus that only
>> complicate the system.
>> You had the oportunity to comment and you did not.
>> > We
>> >know that a bare majority of NC members read the GA list.  I have seen
>> >nothing articulated about how to measure a consensus within the General
>> >Assembly.
>> Members of the constitunecies are, so far, the largest part of the GA. They
>> have two ways of participating in the decision making process, either using
>> the GA list, or through their constituencies. The Names Council not only
>> receives input from the GA, it also receives it from the constituencies,
>> completing the picture. You cannot use the GA list as a meausure of the
>> desires of the GA.
>> >Names Council members who vote for these recommendations from
>> >hastily-arranged working groups are actually doing the positions they
>> >support a serious disservice.  The recommendations will be discredited in
>> >not too long a time - not necessarily because the recommendations
>> >are bad, but because the process of the working groups (too hasty), and
>> >especially the behavior of the Names Council (defensive, autocratic,
and in
>> >violation of the bylaws), will tarnish them badly.
>> You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws.
>> I understand that it is against the interest of your organization that the
>> NC works at all, but be assured that open lies and flames will not help
>> your cause.
>> Javier
>Brian C. Hollingsworth
>Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
>Communications  Affairs and Policy
>Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European