Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

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.
a.

On 2 Jul 2008, at 09:53, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Avri,
> 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.
>
> Philip