Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - Sola falsely accuses, and than "Shades" the Truth himself...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Javier "Generalisimo" Sola, and all,

  GOTCHA!  (See more below)

Javier SOLA wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> >However there seems to be no problem for the NC to impose a UDRP on the
> >entire world with barely a nod to looking at whether this achieved any
> >consensus within the General Assembly, which is the yardstick by which
> >recommendations should be measured, according to the the DNSO bylaws.
>
> Following the procedure established by the bylaws, the report has been made
> public in the DNSO website for comment by anybody who wishes to do it. The
> truth is that we have not seen many comments (the ones received have been
> taken very seriously and the most relevant opposing comments are attached
> to the report).

  This is patently untrue.  I sent in several comments, and there were
not included.  This is indicative of you FALSE reporting and than turning it
around on someone else as an excuse for the DNSO pNC not doing it's
job an properly Archiving comments to relevant documents.  This also is
a part of the public record, BTW....

>
>
> It is easy to complain about lack of consensus. It would be much more
> productive to actually participate in the process and comment on the
> documents instead of figuring out new ways to meausure consensus that only
> complicate the system.

  Measuring consensus is not difficult at all, you only refuse to do so, hence
you than make statements like this one that are inaccurate, and a blatant
attempt to obviscate.  This too is also on record as well....

>
>
> You had the oportunity to comment and you did not.
>
> > We
> >know that a bare majority of NC members read the GA list.  I have seen
> >nothing articulated about how to measure a consensus within the General
> >Assembly.
>
> Members of the constitunecies are, so far, the largest part of the GA. They
> have two ways of participating in the decision making process, either using
> the GA list, or through their constituencies. The Names Council not only
> receives input from the GA, it also receives it from the constituencies,
> completing the picture. You cannot use the GA list as a meausure of the
> desires of the GA.
>
> >Names Council members who vote for these recommendations from
> >hastily-arranged working groups are actually doing the positions they
> >support a serious disservice.  The recommendations will be discredited in
> >not too long a time - not necessarily because the recommendations themselves
> >are bad, but because the process of the working groups (too hasty), and more
> >especially the behavior of the Names Council (defensive, autocratic, and in
> >violation of the bylaws), will tarnish them badly.
>
> You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws.

  BS Generalisimo.

>
>
> I understand that it is against the interest of your organization that the
> NC works at all, but be assured that open lies and flames will not help
> your cause.

  FIrst off, which is it the NC or the pNC? Or is this wishful thinking on
your part?  Second, you are the one putting out flames and flame bait
in this instance by knowing "Shading the Truth"!!

>
>
> Javier

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208