[ncdnhc-discuss] Procedure on .org

[Dave Crocker]

At 08:09 PM 1/1/2002 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Your proposal on the procedure to be followed
>makes perfect sense. In fact, it conforms exactly to what I did.

Well, no.  You did nothing like that.

You waited 10 days, so that you could pretend you had a deadline that 
forced you to bypass your constituency.


>It was obvious that Vany and Kent were trying to
>use the delay to build support for their discredited
>notion of a restricted domain,

Obvious?  My heavens, Milton, you do have remarkable powers of 
invention.  Selective powers, at that, such as ignoring what is actually 
obvious about your own behavior, as noted above.

In any event, what is being nicely ignored is that the constituency chose 
Sponsored, Unrestricted, in spite of comments at the time that noted it was 
a non-sequitur.  So now that that configuration is being prohibited, we 
need to formulate a new position.

For some reason, you think that by having Sponsored Unrestricted be 
rejected, Unsponsored Unrestricted is the automatic choice, rather than 
Sponsored Restricted.  The fact that the constituency voted in favor of S,U 
does not guarantee which remaining alternative it will choose.

As such, dear Milton, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate that 
proponents of each alternative argue their case.  Especially since neither 
of those alternatives was "discredited".  (My, how you DO like to use 
inflammatory language!)

>  but I recognized that as outside the constituency's consensus and 
> proceeded with a new draft based on the U,U model.

Please do not invent consensus that did not get assessed, Milton.  And 
please do not use your false assumptions as an excuse for not bothering to 
show the draft to the constituency prior to sending it outside the NCDNHC.


>It should be obvious why it is impossible to
>develop a full consensus or vote within the
>constituency before going to the Task Force in this
>case. We have only until a January 3rd teleconference.

And, of course, it is interesting to note that your informed the 
constituency of your draft just before the Christmas break, with a deadline 
occuring just after the end of that break.  Clever way to avoid group 
discussion by your constituency, Milton.


>So the result is that I am working very hard
>over what is supposed to be a holiday, holding
>together a consensus both within and across
>constituencies.

holding together?  you mean by browbeating people, impuning their motives, 
and inventing facts?


>  I have a good sense
>of what the members of this constituency want on
>the .org issue,

Now we get down to the real issue, namely that you Milton, are sure of your 
correctness and cannot be bothered to go through legitimate consultation 
with your constituency.


>demanding and high-pressure task, and that your
>representatives could use some moral support as well
>as comments and criticism.

You might consider giving support to other participants, before asking for 
it for yourself.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464