Michael Schneider a �crit:
>
> Whether you're
> satisfied with the outcome or not, I don't think you can say that the Board
> gave preferential treatment to anybody.
They manipulated the NCDNHC formation process so that David Maher,
who isn't a non-commercial domain name holder and doesn't represent
non-commercial ineterests, was able not only to take the dais in the
name of the constituency but put a stick into the spokes of the
organizing process by refusing to compromise, even when he shouldn't
have been there at all.
> Naturally, I know that reports on
> meetings always reflect the speaker's own sense of achievement - but even
> so, if there was one thing the Board did this time, it was to stand by its
> proclaimed policies as far as reasonably possible.
The point is not for them stick stick to their policies, but to
respect the White Paper and their own bylaws. Where is the
constituency for users? Why is the NCDNHC not firmly in the hands of
true non-commercial interests? Why is the Business Constituency
being run by Javier Sola, a V-P of ISOC, while ISOC is attempting to
control the NCDNHC? Why are ISOC/CORE people being allowed to
manipulate, control, and obstruct due process on every front, from
the formation of the DNSO to the organization of the constituencies?
> This brings me to the second point that bothers me somewhat. If I take your
> claim seriously that DNSO is "controlled by those friendly to the
> gTLD-MoU", then this applies to me as well, since I've been elected to the
> provisional Names Council.
ISOC/CORE can't control everything. But now that you've managed to
get on the Names Council (albeit by an undemocratic process), you
take the side of those who are manipulating this process. If you can
set aside you own perspective for a moment, you will understand that
those interests which have not succeeded, or not been allowed to
succeed, in getting onto the Names Council may not be as happy with
things as you are.
