Another example of the exclusionary view of the DNSO.org group?
Another example of the DNSO.org groups failure to even TRY to take into account
views that do not fit into their narrowly define set of goals?
The DNSO.org and its supporters should remember, they are not the only proposal
on the table, and as long as its supporters take positions like this, it is
unlikely to have any significant consensus from the broad base of stakeholders
a proposal requires.
If you can't take the heat Mr Simpson, let me send you some Nomex.
The simple fact is that this group is for discussing the proposals. Just
because YOU believe that constituencies are here to stay, doesn't mean that is
the view of all the stakeholders.
The attitude in your message below has been the attitude of the self appointed
leadership of this DNSO.org since the beginning of the drafting process. "Let's
enshrine our own points of view, and we will only make changes if they are
required by large influential groups who can lobby for us in our effort to
control this process."
If you don't like dissenting views, and can't take disagreement, then you are
not relevent to this process. Show personal integrity (assuming you have any,
which from the attitude I see in this message I doubt).
I am ENTIRELY in support of a DNSO, I am NOT in support of a DNSO that is
created to meet the needs of only a small narrow section of the DN
stakeholders. And I will continue to object to those parts of the proposal
that are not condusive to a TRULY representative DNSO.
On 29-Jan-99 William Allen Simpson wrote:
> There seems to be a strange phenomenon here, where folks that don't
> support the proposal think that they have a voice in its construction
> (or destruction).
>
> That's kind of like going to a constitutional convention, but not
> agreeing that you should actually write a constitution. Historically,
> as it happened, the folks that didn't agree with the direction that the
> US constitutional convention went, had enough personal integrity to pack
> their bags and go home.
>
> Listen up. The proposal being discussed here has constituencies as a
> primary feature. If you don't support constituencies, then you are not
> relevant to this proposal. Pack your bags. Show personal integrity
> (assuming that you have any).
>
> If you don't like the proposal, write your own. Somewhere else.
> There's always room for more.
>
>
>> From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On 29-Jan-99 Mikki Barry wrote:
>> > I move that all constituencies be removed from the draft to be added at a
>> > later date if the need arises.
>>
>> Seconded.
>>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29-Jan-99
Time: 00:09:36
----------------------------------
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
