by golly milton i really try to avoid these little tet-a-tet's but sometime
you get just a little too silly !!!
from the first time i met you, you haven always taken very strong
advocacy's which i have respected you for.
but then you will turn around & criticize and chastise someone else for
doing exactly the same thing you do (only because it is in opposition to
your perspective). you attempt to posture & subsequently influence, and then
turn around & criticize others for the same actions. you attempt to
manipulate discussion and then call others attempts to do the same illogical
and unethical.
attempts on anyone's part to advocate or influence their point of view
becomes "conspiratorial" if the position is not yours.
on one hand you say (and i quote directly from your text below)
" I apologize to all who I urged to get involved in this travesty"
and in the next message you post to the list you say:
" the Barcelona meeting looked like the same old people shifting the same
old battle to a
different level, and acting in the same old way. There was simply no way we
were
going to participate in the Barcelona meeting under those circumstances.
This
was made clear at the time. "
please don't try to tell me you are not attempting to posture & manipulate.
that would just be too hard to believe.
milton, i know life is a challenge for all of us but if you keep trying to
present it as a continual "conspiratorial tragedy" more and more people will
come to view you as "entertaining" rather than informative.
happy new year
KS
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
>These kinds of comments have just about dissuaded me from any further
comments on the DNSO
>proposals.
>Given this kind of response, why should anyone waste their time trying to
convince
>dnso.org to make any substantive changes?
>
>The only response is to create an alternative dnso proposal and submit it
to ICANN
>independently. I apologize to all who I urged to get involved in this
travesty.
>--MM
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> > > So, it would be perfectly reasonable to creat the constituency you
>> > > describe. Mike Heltzer, the person that I understand did most of the
>> > > drafting of the INTA document, has suggested to me in private email
>> > > that there should be a "Free speech and Consumer Interests"
>> > > constituency, which I think would be a good idea.
>> >
>> > Unbelievably disingenuous. If you take the idea seriously, add that
constituency to
>> > your draft NOW. All it takes is a few strokes of the pen.
>>
>> Such an action would be totally irresponsible, under the
>> circumstances. It doesn't take a few strokes of the pen, it takes
>> consensus, or at least a strong majority, before such a thing can be
>> contemplated. Let me explain a bit further, since you seem somewhat
>> oblivious: Adding a new constituency is a non-trivial matter because
>> it changes representation patterns. I am in no position to
>> unilaterally gerrymander those through a casual stroke of the pen.
>>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
