ICANN-Santiago Real-Time Comments in DNSO NC Session

Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.

Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee)
You ran away (Public Comment, 8/26/99 5:49:02 PM, #512)

Someone calls for open comments when there's FINALLY time for them, after Amadeu successfully postponed their reading earlier in the meeting, and before anyone can react, the meeting's adjourned.

It's actions just like this that call into question your openness and honesty. Behavior such as this serves to illustrate your real interests and desires: Yourselves.

You should all be ashamed.

Paul Stauffer (Boston University)
procedures (Next Meetings, 8/26/99 4:55:43 PM, #511)

Please arrange for an independent parliamentarian for your next face-to-face meeting. I think you would get a LOT more accomplished.

Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.)
Regards to motions (WG Updates, 8/26/99 4:14:48 PM, #510)

I am going to write this to make it clearer, it is hard to hear when I can comment.

I think overdeference to Robert's Rules, and on wording of motions and ammendments somewhat defeats our purpose of discussing issues and reaching consensus. I don't think it is fair to any non-native English speakers either. Maybe we can try to discuss more in a round table fashion, giving guidelines and emphasis rather than strictly worded motions.

Just my opinion.


Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee)
Motion 2, which passed... (WG Updates, 8/26/99 3:49:53 PM, #509)

Are you intending to *limit* participation to only two people from each constituency with that motion???

Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee)
NC doing WG-D's work? (WG Updates, 8/26/99 3:11:28 PM, #508)

I'm curious to know why the NC feels that it must do the work of WG-D, a body which it has already designated to determine the process for WGs?

It would appear that the NC wants to impose structure from above rather than wait for the recommendations of a concensus document from WG-D.

Mark Langston (IDNO Steering Committee)
Process v. Result (WG Updates, 8/26/99 3:08:03 PM, #507)

It is important that results are achieved in the WGs. However, the desire for a working, fair process has been voiced in all current WGs, and yet some on the Names Council want the work to proceed without this structure, in the interest of expediency rather than equity.

The desire for fairness and equity in the process is not an attempt to delay or obstruct; it's just an attempt to ensure that the results we achieve are acceptable to all, and to eliminate the need or desire to redo the work (for example, WG-A).

(6 messages total)

Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Francais, Espanol, Italiano, Portugues


For additional technical information, please contact:

Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

All times are Santiago (GMT -5)

This file is automatically generated.