[ncdnhc-discuss] No new LA agenda

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Dany Vandromme <vandrome at renater.fr> 10/01/01 02:12PM >>>
****
There is no parallel between ICANN and its staff and NCDNHC and its adcom
1) ICANN staff is not elected

MM ===> So, unlike Adcom, it has absolutely no legitimacy to 
define an agenda.

2) I doubt that a single staff member would voice on behalf of ICANN,
without consultation with other staff member.

MM ===> I'm sure the staff consulted with itself. It's the rest
of the Internet community they ignored.

3) I do not see how ICANN staff is planning to force the NCDNHC agenda,
in any way!

MM ===> Well, they have since backed down and made
it clear that there will be time for constituency meetings.
But read Lynn's original announcement. It asked us to
"focus exclusively" in our "constituency meetings" on his
agenda.

My concern was not addressing the attitude of ICANN staff about the MdR
agenda, but about you expressing a NCDNHC view near the NC without even
consulting others constituency members.

MM ===> Here you are just wrong. As I pointed out to 
Vany, there is nothing in my statement that suggests that
it is a "NCDNHC view." On the other hand, it is MY view, and I
expressed it on the discuss list precisely in order to make my 
view known to the constituency. I don't mind disagreement and 
discussion of the view but it is absurd to say that a NC member 
cannot express any view on the Names Council without consulting 
the membership. If that were the case, there is no need
for an elected representative.  In this case, time is of the essence.
I made it clear that I object, and then immediately sent that
view to the constituency for comment. What's wrong with that?