Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism...

[Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu>]

Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> writes:

> Randy, evidently you have not been paying much attention.  No about of
> action from ICANN has been acceptable.  No amount of inaction.  Ever.
> Everything has been used solely as grist for the criticism mill.

This argument is completely bogus.  It's semantically equivalent to
arguing that ICANN is being unfairly criticized and using as the
foundation of your argument the assertion that the criticism of ICANN is
unfair.

Your words only make sense to someone who already believes that ICANN has
gone to heroic efforts to try to satisfy their criticism.  If you believe
that ICANN has put almost all of its energy into obfuscation and
attempting to avoid public accountability, then this argument obviously
isn't persuasive since ICANN has, by that belief, never *tried* anything
effective to address criticism.  So of course what ICANN has done has not
been acceptable.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>