It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack.
There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder community you seek to raise it in, but I seriously doubt if the way you've done this is going to be all that effective. thanks --srs On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Peter Thimmesch <peter.thimme...@depository.net> wrote: > John, > > > > Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address > registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence > Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 > March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy) > <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accre > ditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf > > > > > In addition we pointed out, in our opinion, that the current process for > reviewing and approving a Global Policy is somewhat skewed towards the > Regional Internet Registries. Hence we requested that due to this obvious > and readily apparent Conflict-of-Interest (yes, I expect you will disagree > with even this, which is so clear that to debate this would be simply too > much even by the new standards that you have set recently in your online > arguments with Prof. Mueller) we explore other forums to have the merits of > the proposal aired. > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter Thimmesch > > Chairman > > > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
