On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > > "The most important duty for the PSO is supplying 3 Directors."
> > >
> > > That I guess also means
> > > "The most important duty for the DNSO is supplying 3 Directors."
> > > "The most important duty for the ASO is supplying 3 Directors."
> >
> > Doesn't necessarily mean that.
>
> In other words, you believe that the PSO is more important than the other
> PSOs.
You know, you should drop the phrase "in other words" from your
vocabulary, since you clearly don't understand what it means. The
way you use it, it means this:
"Here's a statement I would like to argue against. It looks
vaguely like it possibly might be related to what you wrote, so I
will just assume that what you wrote means the same thing."
> To be concise: Simple technical elitism.
Nope. Proven competence.
> The ICANN board is limited to mechanically accepting initiatives from SO's
> unless the board can find that one of a few very limited exceptions
> applies.
>
> That is not "a great deal of power".
In theory. In practice there is a great deal of power...
> > > The PSO covers policies regarding protocol parameters, and in particular
> > > the policies regarding resolution of conflicts between allocations by
> > > different standards and industry bodies. That's all the PSO covers.
> >
> > ...I don't agree with your interpretation of the bylaws;
>
> Read the ICANN bylaws. They are pretty clear that each of the SO's covers
> a narrow topic.
I've read them. I don't agree with your interpretation. Lawyers I
know do not agree with your interpretation, either.
More important, I don't agree with your understanding of the
practical realities of the situation. I am not alone in that
assessment, as well.
Fortunately, practical realities are matters of fact, not opinion,
and we can watch the facts unfold.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
