David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing
IETF may be harder to capture. But it does not have the constituency
relevant to these issues.
Using the IETF to fix a defect in the ICANN system may appear to be a
good idea, but what you are essentially saying here is that the work
is being done in the IETF to avoid being responsive to
The problem here is that a
consensus based approach is a lousy way to deal with large complicated
problems where the number of stakeholders is very large and only a
tiny minority of them are able to participate in the IETF process in
an effective manner.
This may well be true, but in many
--On Thursday, April 30, 2009 00:22 -0700 Bernard Aboba
bernard_ab...@hotmail.com wrote:
ICANN might not be the right place to discuss issues such as
I18N, but IETF is worse.
ICANN is not by its nature a standards body so that it's not
naturally well suited to discussion of standards
No, I think that it was an attempt to claim that no criticism should
ever be directed at that individual.
As is the case with the British monarch, those who leap to the defense
of the honor of the Queen are more often as not attempting to put
criticism of their own position beyond the bounds of
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing (rough) consensus' is, at its
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:26:02PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
I was very dissatisfied with the IETF's performance towards its agenda
until this occurred to me. It would have helped me immensely if it
were formally identified in this way (but then that would require the
IETF carry a
Here is a dictionary definition of Beyond reproach:
Beyond reproach: So good as to preclude any possibility of criticism.
Last time I looked, RFC 3777 did not include this definition as a requirement
for the nomcom in selection of I* candidates.
Good thing, too. We seem to have gotten by
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Here is a dictionary definition of Beyond reproach:
Beyond reproach: So good as to preclude any possibility of criticism.
Last time I looked, RFC 3777 did not include this definition as a
requirement for the nomcom in selection of I* candidates.
Good thing, too.
