- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] On the cost of application, and Joint Application Support related
by Eric Brunner-Williams April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

> This is confusing. This discussion on the SSR-RT is supposed to happen on the technical issues list, not the NA one. On list_A, someone is arguing that the ALAC position on issue_A should be that applicants with less than a million {euros or dollars} is play money are a nuisance or threaten to cause the failure of the Internet or some other amazing effect of having less than a million {euros or dollars} to play ICANN roulette. On list_B, others are arguing that the ALAC position on issue_B should be that all applicants have to attempt to acquire the same scarce resources en mass, simultaneously, as if that policy has no cost consequences to applicants forced to acquire those same scarce resources, which happens to be held in surplus by legacy operators. Now, without attempting to argue the merits of issue_B on list_A, or the merits of issue_A on list_B, I have pointed out that a consistent position on cost to applicants is unlikely if the conclusions of list_A and list_B are contradictory. We could have ALAC recommends inflicting wicked high and purposeless costs on all applicants through a comment on the SSR-RT issues. We could have ALAC recommends avoiding inflicting wicked high and purposeless costs on all applicants through a comment on the SSR-RT issues. We could have NARALO recommends jacking up the prices on all scarce goods and services through mass synchronous demand. We could have NARALO recommends not jacking up the prices on all scarce goods and services and avoiding mass synchronous demand. Eric

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team - Call for Comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

Dear All, Please note that Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, has extended the call for comments on the draft ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) to 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 6 April. URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Comments+on+the+Publi c+Call+by+the+Stability%2C+Security%2C+and+Resilience+of+the+DNS+Review+Team +%28SSR-RT%29+-+March+2011) Short URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aQKX. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff From: ICANN At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:16 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'technical-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; 'afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; 'apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; 'euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; 'LACRALO discussion list'; 'na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org' Cc: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; 'Patrick Vande Walle'; ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team - Call for Comments Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) which has been drafted by Patrick Vande Walle: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Comments+on+the+Publi c+Call+by+the+Stability%2C+Security%2C+and+Resilience+of+the+DNS+Review+Team +%28SSR-RT%29+-+March+2011) Short URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aQKX. The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues. This public comment closes on Wednesday, 6 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 3 April. An ALAC vote will begin on 4 April. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date. However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/) According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG." According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf) Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food. Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman. NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS." In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role. However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are: * Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM >To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Hi, > >But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word. > >And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract. > >As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large. > >Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open. > >a. > >On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." >> >> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >>> >>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >>> >>> with kind regards, >>> a. >>> >>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> >>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>>> volunteer time into the details. >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >> > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

14 68

Re: [NA-Discuss] On the Cost Application
by Carlton Samuels April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

Just so's you know Avri and FWIW, you may not transpose Alan's comments to all of ALAC. Record my exception. In as much as I shall not subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy, comfort of a few Board members will never be a consideration for any advice I will offer as a member of ALAC. In fact, I see my role as diametrically opposed; to afflict the comfortable, as necessary. Personalities differ and sometimes on the road to consensus you must go along to get along. I sometimes agree to changes in language not because I wish to change my opinion but rather to, in my judgment, make my opinion more embraceable by my colleagues who are less comfortable with.....shall we say...emotive language or controversy. Boards are constituted of men and women who can be and sometimes are, wrong-headed. I am ever willing to say so when I think so. The ALAC's advice, as offered, must be driven by principles that can stand on their own and informed by our constituency. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:46:25 -0400 > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC > To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: <20110403144755.B56483B4C(a)mailscan1.ncs.mcgill.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > I can't speak on behalf of ALAC, but I can say why I opposed the > "look at the 100k item" initially in the WG and later supported the > ALAC recommendation to exclude it from the new Charter. > > I strongly believe that reductions in this component are warranted > for some select group of disadvantaged applicants. But I believe that > if ICANN does this, it will be from a willingness to help such > applicants (or perhaps more important, their planned TLDs). This is > for two reasons: > > - the original development of the $100k involved, among other things, > a complex statistically-based simulation of various possibilities. > Even if it was incorrectly done, we are not likely to be able to > identify the flaw in any post-analysis that we can do; > > - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to > reject our entire package if questioning the $100k is a major component. > > Alan > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:35:18 +0000 > From: avri(a)ella.com > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC > To: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] > > > > - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to reject > our entire package if > > questioning the $100k is a major component. > > > Well far be it for me to second guess ALAC, but I do not believe that > bottom-up organizations should be second guessing the powers that be when > deciding what to recommend. Self censorship often censors more than might > be disapproved of by the powers that be. Of course I figure that to the JAS > WG, ALAC is a components of the relative opacity that is the powers that be > in ALAC. > > Second guessing a few month ago would have had us leave any price > reductions out of the recommendations, whereas after a bit of persistence, > including showing the GNSO recommendations that allowed differential > pricing, we may now be approach the possibility of approved price reductions > for some applicants. > > Like wise persistance in pointing out that the cost neutrality, as > recommended by the GNSO was for the application program, and not for all > previous charges or expectations of possible future risk. Persistence in > this vein might also achieve results. > > a. > > > >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2011

April 3, 2011

Follow the money, indeed! But can I tell you, I'm for letting everybody have their TLD. I myself cannot see why a .brand is going to be a panacea for big biz or, for that, matter, Ms Consumer. And if a .co floats your boat better than a .com, then, ching ching for my friends the Colombians! Part of the mystery in this circle of life. So, if some person with too much money for sense wants to spend some of that loot on providing TLDs, why, I think in this context it would be almost incivil not to help them. Which brings me to this business of categories. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the kerfuffle about them. Especially when the existing TLDs were less than subtle movements/motions/notions at categorization! Quick, can anyone say .edu or .biz or... dotorg? I'm not persuaded to the argument that a thousand more TLDs will make the Internet unstable. What is abundantly clear is ICANN does not now have - and, seemingly, is blissfully unaware of! - an apparatus in place sufficient to shepherd the land rush some people anticipate. That is the problem for me. And that is why in my At-Large voice, I would rather see a more orderly introduction...than not. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
by avri＠ella.com April 3, 2011

April 3, 2011

-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] > - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to reject our entire package if > questioning the $100k is a major component. Well far be it for me to second guess ALAC, but I do not believe that bottom-up organizations should be second guessing the powers that be when deciding what to recommend. Self censorship often censors more than might be disapproved of by the powers that be. Of course I figure that to the JAS WG, ALAC is a components of the relative opacity that is the powers that be in ALAC. Second guessing a few month ago would have had us leave any price reductions out of the recommendations, whereas after a bit of persistence, including showing the GNSO recommendations that allowed differential pricing, we may now be approach the possibility of approved price reductions for some applicants. Like wise persistance in pointing out that the cost neutrality, as recommended by the GNSO was for the application program, and not for all previous charges or expectations of possible future risk. Persistence in this vein might also achieve results. a.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 2, 2011

April 2, 2011

>It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.< Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM >To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> wrote: > > >> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I >> think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective >> users). >> > >Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly >irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the >interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even >registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain. > >I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. >And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different. > >So basing any argument here about > >You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are >harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users. > >Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been >deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing >namespace? > >It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >the panic rush for more TLDs. > >The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >end-user demand (and my full support). > >- Evan >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

6 7

Short but interesting interview with Rod Beckstrom
by Antony Van Couvering April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

http://it-jobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130142995154198749/ICANN-CEO-on-Getting-… Antony

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Troll file. bye -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Apr 1, 2011 4:31 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Darlene Thompson <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Beau Brendler, > >If you don't mind, since you made the announcement of your "duty" public, I would like your rationale to be made publicly too. I seem recall an insistence on transparency at ICANN emanating from some quarters of ICANN. > >FWIW, I didn't intend the statement you quote as a threat and have a hard time understanding how it could be construed as such. So I would like your rationale on the record. If you decline to provide one in public, I would like you to withdraw your warning. I would also appreciate you being specific as to the supposed personal attack I made, because on reviewing that I have a hard time how what I said could be construed that way either. > >In addition, I would appreciate a link to the rules of conduct for the NA-discuss list, and to any other organization or procedural rules for NARALO . I can't find anything on the NARALO site (https://st.icann.org/naralo/) which appears to be woefully out of date. > >Thanks, > >Antony > > >On Apr 1, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> My caution has nothing to do with your opinion -- Richard Tindal is expressing very similar opinions to yours, and there's quite a good discussion ensuing. Opinions are welcome. Personal attacks (as one list member complained about when he said he would add you to his troll list) and threats (as I read your comment below, in the context of the e-mails before and after it, to be) aren't. If you need further specifics e-mail me offline or call me on the phone, I'm in the book in the New York area. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >>> Sent: Apr 1, 2011 3:56 PM >>> To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> Beau Brendler, >>> >>> I see that Jeff Williams and I have something in common at last.... >>> >>> Could you be more specific as to how these words imply a threat? I am excited to know that I have a home in ICANN at last and I want to make sure that I don't do it again. >>> >>> Antony Van Couvering >>> >>> >>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >>> >>>> Antony Van Couvering, >>>> >>>> As chairman of NARALO, I believe it's my duty to inform you this e-mail communication, specifically the part that says "I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself," constitutes an implied threat, and therefore violates participation guidelines for ICANN mailing lists. >>>> >>>> If another such infraction occurs you will be barred from this list. >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >>>>> Sent: Apr 1, 2011 12:05 AM >>>>> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>>>> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>>>> >>>>> I agree that this is somewhat unkind, but it is rather on point to the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself. >>>>> >>>>> Antony >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 31 March 2011 23:25, Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Is that jl.ly in your signature one of those "vanity" domain names you're always going on about? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So much for the claim of good faith attempt to engage without personal attack. >>>>>> Welcome to my troll filter. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Evan >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>>>> >>>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>>>> ------ >>>> >>> >> >

2 1

NARALO code of conduct and chair's authority to suspend posting rights
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

To those who post to the NA-RALO list: The NARALO code of conduct can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2264679/NA-2007-1-2+NARALO… This document is posted on the Confluence NARALO site under "organizing documents" (see: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/RALO+Organising+Documents) The NARALO over the last several months has been migrating from one content system to another, as has been repeatedly discussed in NARALO and ALAC meetings, as well as in person in Cartagena and San Francisco. Some outdated materials are still left on the old site. Page one, paragraph one of the document says: ------------------------------------------ Inappropriate postings include: • Unsolicited bulk e-mail, • Discussion of subjects unrelated to ICANN policy, meetings, activities, or technical concerns, • Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject, • Postings being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others, • Postings that are libellous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person, • Postings that violate an obligation of confidentiality, • Postings that violate the privacy of others, • Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not related to ICANN matters. =========================================== The chair's authority is described thus: The NARALO Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's posting rights when the content that person has posted is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The Chair defines and determines what is inappropriate content on a case-by-case basis. Our definitions are not limited to this list. In addition, page 2 states: For example, if the group is unable to reach consensus, this is an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In other words, individual bad faith should not trump community goodwill. ----------------------------- Is that transparent and clear enough?

1 0