At 2/14/99, 01:34 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> In fact, these examples
>> illustrate quite clearly the concern that many have with the dnso.org-BMW
>> draft: it gives too much power to the Names Council to act in the way
>> Kent suggests. There's no question that recommendations on the examples
>> that Kent gave need to be made in an orderly fashion, but these are not
>> "emergency" issues on which the Names Council should be given authority
>> to act without consultation of the DNSO membership.
>
>It is so frustrating when people simply make up facts to suit their
>case...
Kent,
You are absolutely CORRECT!!!!
>The clauses you refer to REQUIRE THE NC TO CONSULT WITH THE
Consult yes, listen to **NO**!
>MEMBERSHIP AND THE CONSTITUENCIES, unless there TRULY is no time.
Membership yes, (general/at large/individual)
membership **NO**!
The truth of the matter is that the BMW draft
features a "COUNCIL OF ELDERS" approach to DNS
Policy Formation, and it features *NO* "GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP" of any consequence.
Your continued attempts to claim otherwise
*IS* FRUSTRATING ;-)
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.�
404-943-0524� http://www.iperdome.com
