At 2/14/99, 05:15 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is true that the WMB model does not support *individual* members
>directly. However, there is a quite well-defined and effective
>general membership: the geenral membership in the WMB model elects the
>Names Council, and is the body from which the policy determining
>committees are drawn, as in the Paris Draft.
More disinformation from Kent Crispin . . .
The WMB/BMW/MBW/(whatever the name of the hour is)
does NOT have a "general" membership independent of
the narrowly defined constituency groups.
The result of forcing all "members" into non-exclusive
constituencies guarantees that minority positions will
*NEVER* have a voice in the process. It is a form of
gerrymandering where minorities are forced into categories
where they will always remain minorities.
>> The truth of the matter is that the BMW draft
>> features a "COUNCIL OF ELDERS" approach to DNS
>> Policy Formation,
>
>The truth of the matter is that you are simply engaging in mindless
>sloganeering, and parroting your patrons terminology.
The truth of the matter is you can call your Names
Council whatever you want -- it is an all powerful
committee that can make decisions independent of the
wishes of Domain Name stakeholders. When you combine
its power with the dilution of minority interests as
described above, you have an organization that is
captured from the get-go.
Frankly, Kent, this entire exchange shows that you have
no desire to find consensus with the supporters of the
Paris draft. Your actions appear to be the highest
expression of "bad faith" that I've seen since you and
Dave Crocker alienated everyone who disagreed with the
gTLD-MoU.
Does the business/trademark community condone this activity?
Unless they state otherwise, I'd say we have no chance at
merging the two proposal into a single consensus document,
and their stated efforts to do so are a sham.
IMHO & FWIW!
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.�
404-943-0524� http://www.iperdome.com
