Re: [council] WhoIS WG

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxx 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
> 
>