[ncc-services-wg] debate and representation

On 8 Oct 2007, at 18:44, Jim Reid wrote:

> However I am very disappointed that you seem to be saying I should  
> just shut up and not be entitled to voice my opinions because they  
> happen to disagree with yours. Or that a board member, even when  
> speaking in a personal capacity, cannot contribute to a WG's  
> discussions or policy-making proposals.

It's hard to differentiate between Jim wearing his jewel encrusted  
NCC board crown and Jim wearing his tasteful Lochcarron beret tam -  
can you really offer a truly impartial viewpoint on a matter which  
has caused you both personal and professional angst, and in which you  
have an NCC board interest ?

While I realise you are making valid points, I genuinely think you're  
damaging your professional integrity by pushing this argument which  
has a waft of sour grapes to it. I'm truly surprised that your board  
colleagues allow this to continue unchecked - you hurt them and  
yourself.

> There's a valid debate to be had on this subject and its wider  
> implications. This WG would be remiss if it did not allow a  
> reasoned, open exchange of views from all sides. I hope we can at  
> least agree on that. :-)

Reasoned debate is welcome, but difficult to conduct when dominated  
by the extreme views of one individual.

This DNSMON/ENUM proposal is well supported, and looks likely to be  
approved.

While the discussion surrounding it might look like a good conduit  
for you to air your viewpoints, you can't effect the change you  
desire unless you bring forward your own proposal. These rounds of  
ceaseless rhetoric are a waste of time because they do not relate to  
the proposal at hand. Bring *your* proposal, and then we can have  
*your* discussion


With best regards,
Andy Davidson