8/1/05

Back

On 8/1/05, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> He asked me for advice on why the domain is continuing along this path. I
> responded: The people in this domain will continue as long as there is
> neither risk nor consequence of not having a DST. The only real way you
> can get them to advance the process in some way is by providing those.
> Since he's the RST, the only legitimate way he can provide such is by
> exerting his veto power on the VSS', and a precedent that allows him to do
> so while still giving us time is lack of DST reports. I also advised him
> that if he did this, there are people in this domain stubborn enough to
> try to call the bluff.
>
> Shortly after the election flopped, this is precisely what he did. Thus I
> have legitimate reason to believe that he will follow through.

To clarify:

Jon asked you what he should do to motivate the Domain toward a solution more agreeable to him (having a DST).

You advised threats against our VSSes because it is the only pressure that he can exert.

Jon presented these plans to us as "something he has to do because that's the rules."

Is that correct?

Because I would have felt better if Mr. "Say one thing do one thing" came over and said "hey you guys, get a DST or I'm desanctioning your venues" rather than "oh, man, I'm so very sorry, I *have* to descanction your venues now." Now, because this is hearsay, I will give Jon the benefit of the doubt, but if what you say it true then I feel... violated somehow.

- Donald Sheldon
US2002022644

Back