pbaker at verisign.com
Tue Jun 24 14:45:57 CEST 2003
At what point do you believe I made the process closed?
When the chair hissed at me the first time I spoke in a DNSEXT meeting?
That is the point at which I formed the opinion the process was closed.
Perhaps that may have affected my later actions.
Maybee it was at the second DNSEXT meeting when I pointed out that the
ability to deploy a DNS spec in dotCOM or the other large zones might be
considered an important criteria?
When the OPT-IN proposal was diverted into the 'DNS Directorate' and I
complained that the process was not open?
When the second last call went by with no objections and the chair decided
that the fact I had been SILENT was now to be used against me?
Bascially the whole process was a farce. People kept teling me be quiet,
don't rock the boat. And every single time I took that advice it was
immediately followed by a fresh abuse of process.
What I should have done is to use the appeals process immediately following
the DNS Directorate detour.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:20 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu; jseng at pobox.org.sg; pbaker at verisign.com;
> problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
> > At this point making noise about the failure of the IETF is
> > empirically more productive than actually participating in
> the broken
> > process.
> Phill, you should stop complaining about a lack of openness
> when you're
> deliberately making the process closed to you.
More information about the Problem-statement