Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:07:23 +0200
Perhaps I was using a different meaning of denigrate then is usual.
It is a use I use a lot when speaking about pieces of a system or
protocol which are no longer perceived of as useful. Since ICANN is a
body with technical/policy role, I thought the usage would be clear.
The nomcom fits a role within the system. You are looking to
redesign the system and arguing that within this system the nomcom
appointee no longer serves a purpose. That, to me, is a denigration.
And that is what I think I was arguing against.
I did not mean to say you were saying nasty things about us personally
or blackening our names.
On 2 Jul 2008, at 09:53, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I do not believe my discussion paper denigrated the nom com.
It stated an historic fact "Their number (3) is a function of the
present GNSO structure".
and an open issue "Their relevance in a reformed structure is
unclear". This last remark
references the fact the formal nom com review is incomplete and that
we do not know the
shape of the next GNSO structure.