>>William Walsh wrote:
>>
>>>>Until Michael Sondow agrees that you have=20
>>>>a consensus document, you don't. =20
>>>>
>>>Mr Sondow would never agree to any document which did not raise him to
>>>some position of power where he has the ultimate say.
>>>
>>>Your position that until Mr Sondow agrees to a document it is not
>>>consensus is as unacceptable as their proposal.
>>>
>>>Being one of the first people to say they want to help form a
>>>constituency conveys absolutely no rights or privileges to that
>>>person.
>>>
>>>
>>William,
>>I don't think the personality of the proponent should be a major factor in
>>deciding whether there is a consensus document.
>>
>>A good consensus document tries to embody the different viewpoints, yes,
>>including of those who felt motivated enough to come with a first
>>constituency organizing proposal.
>>
>>While I agree that being the first gives no rights or privileges to the
>>person, shutting somebody out who has taken an initiative is bound to
>>create ill will, beyond Mr Sondow himself.
>>
>>If the same thing were to happen to the IDNO constituency, I am sure there
>>would be a lot of very angry people.
>>
Joop,
There becomes a point where the selection of a spokesperson of a
certain "history" becomes detrimental to ones cause.
This would be akin to NSI selecting Jeffrey Williams as the
spokesperson for the gTLD constituency.
The IDNO surely would not select someone to be a spokespersons whose
history was such that there was no chance they would be taken
seriously.
I can't help but wonder if those who are "rallying" behind Mr Sondow
are not doing so simply because they know he has no chance of
succeeding, and if indeed that is their goal, to have something to use
against the NCDNHC effort later.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
