[ncdnhc-discuss] Board retreats and fully transparent process for ICANN

[James Love]

Dave, In other words, you demand an example where an equivalent body acts a
particular way, but can't name even one body that you would consider
equivalent.   Perhaps the engineer in you can see where this type of
argument is going.    Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board retreats and fully transparent process
for ICANN


: At 12:52 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
: >    Dave, please give me an example of what you consider an EQUIVALENT
: >organization to ICANN.
:
: James, it is really quite interesting that you make a habit of putting
: forward a proposal and then demand that others explain why it is not
: acceptable, rather than your feeling an responsibility for justifying the
: proposal.
:
: So let's be clear:  You folks need to cite an example of an administrative
: rules you find acceptable, for an organization that has similar attributes
: to ICANN, in terms of goals and scale.
:
: If you find such a group, then you have a justification for claiming that
: your proposal are already known to work.
:
: If you find no such group, then your proposals are purely experimental.
:
: Changing an existing activity that is responsible for a global
: infrastructure service is a dangerous act.
:
: When the change is experimental, it is particularly dangerous and must be
: pursued very, very cautiously, if at all.
:
: The benefits must vastly outweigh the dangers.
:
: The current operation must be wholly unworkable.
:
: So far you have not demonstrated safety, efficacy or need for your
proposal.
:
: d/
:
:
: ----------
: Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
: TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
: tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
:
: