IETF may be harder to capture. But it does not have the constituency
relevant to these issues.
Using the IETF to fix a defect in the ICANN system may appear to be a
good idea, but what you are essentially saying here is that the work
is being done in the IETF to avoid being responsive to stakehold
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing (rou
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:26:02PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> I was very dissatisfied with the IETF's performance towards its agenda
> until this occurred to me. It would have helped me immensely if it
> were formally identified in this way (but then that would require the
> IETF carry a 'Ph
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
> a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
> offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing (rough) consensus' is, at its
No, I think that it was an attempt to claim that no criticism should
ever be directed at that individual.
As is the case with the British monarch, those who leap to the defense
of the honor of the Queen are more often as not attempting to put
criticism of their own position beyond the bounds of ac
--On Thursday, April 30, 2009 00:22 -0700 Bernard Aboba
wrote:
>> ICANN might not be the right place to discuss issues such as
>> I18N, but IETF is worse.
>
> ICANN is not by its nature a standards body so that it's not
> naturally well suited to discussion of standards issues, nor
> would it
>The problem here is that a
> consensus based approach is a lousy way to deal with large complicated
> problems where the number of stakeholders is very large and only a
> tiny minority of them are able to participate in the IETF process in
> an effective manner.
This may well be true, but in ma
Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Here is a dictionary definition of "Beyond reproach":
>
> Beyond reproach: So good as to preclude any possibility of criticism.
>
> Last time I looked, RFC 3777 did not include this definition as a
> requirement for the nomcom in selection of I* candidates.
>
> Good thing
Here is a dictionary definition of "Beyond reproach":
Beyond reproach: So good as to preclude any possibility of criticism.
Last time I looked, RFC 3777 did not include this definition as a requirement
for the nomcom in selection of I* candidates.
Good thing, too. We seem to have "gotten b
