Philip, Thanks for your reply. Not that I want to further argue this with you, but I also received a message off-list, cc'ed to all those in the cc field above but one (the author of that message) saying that I have misrepresented the episode I was referring to. So to avoid having to write various emails to say basically the same thing, and for the records, allow me here to reply to you et al. with a recall of the sequence of events as follows. 1. Bertrand de la Chappelle (Observer!) asked a question in a posting with subject line "A single regime for all gTLDs or not?"; 2. Philip answered; 3. I asked Philip, clearly naming him, for a clarification on his answer; 4. Danny Younger asked another question about Philip's answer to Bertrand; 5. Philip replied to Danny's question; 6. I reposted my earlier question directed to Philip to the list with a note asking, what about it? 7. Still no answer; 8. I received a message offline from Maria encouraging me to restate my question; 9. I reposted the question to the list; 10. At last, Philip answered under a new thread: "consensus policy" referring me to the council. 11. I then posted a new message with the subject line: "Question on a statement made by the chair of this WG (not on consensus policy)" And that was it, for the main part and as far as Philip and myself were concerned (following that, Danny commented on Philip's assumptions, and Jeff Williams on Danny's comment.) Point 1 to 11 above took place between May 21 and 24 under the three subject lines quoted above. So anyone who's interested to find out whether I'm misrepresenting can check that in the list archives, instead of letting themselves be told someone else's version of the story. That was my last word on this. Mawaki --- philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:
Mawaki,
I do not understand your concern about the WHOIS WG. You asked an excellent question on the WHOIS WG and I said that the question was in my view out of scope of the WG charter. This is not a refusal to answer but one that recognised the limit to the responsibilities of a WG chair. To address out of scope questions on a group of more than 60 with a large proportion being observers new to the ICANN process seemed unwise.
I recommended that you ask the question of Council. You have not done so.
Philip