Hello Ed and Joop --
I fear that some kind of short circuit has occurred here.
Maybe several all at once;-)...
So, lets back up and reset/restart.
I am not entirely opposed to constituencies, but I am opposed to them
as ICANN is using them. I am not organizing one of my own, but I am
supporting several others while also promoting competition for ICANN
because I find that ICANN ignores too many of the people who
particicpate in their stilted divide and conquer constituency
formation games, while paying great attention to unamed and invisible
supporters who lurk in the shadows and appear to manipulate things.
But, I am visibly supporting several constituencies, namely the IDNO
that Joop is forming, and the TLDA that Milton (Gene) Marsh is
forming, in the upside hopes that they might have some influence, and
the downside hopes that ICANN will quash them and clearly show its
real intentions to exclude them from having any influence.
Of course, it is also possible that ICANN will embrace them and still
ignore them, in the strategy of "holding your enemies close". this is
why I am putting the greater effort into competing, as I find that
ICANN pays more attention to competition than to my contituencies.
I do not support the DNSO-IP constituency as it is cleary working
against my interests, but we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP)
constituncy with the IDNO constituency, though I must say the the
alphbet soup of constituency names has reached the point of no
return;-)...
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:22:33 -0700:
}
}Joop Teernstra wrote:
}
}> Friends,
}>
}> All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency,
}> actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO.
}
}Joop:
}
}Not at all.
}
}I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted. It should be
}recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is
}done most of the times if not all, not to oppose anything from the past
}but to help build something better for the future. To say otherwise is
}to misuse their trust.
}
}It is also misleading to consider mere listserver subscription as "support"
}or "opposition" when most of the time people just want to hear what is
}happening.
}
}> Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming
}> something that already looks like an organization.
}>
}> A contradiction?
}
}No, a sophism.
}
}> These few dozen founding members are set to become the the little crystal
}> dropped in the over-saturated solution.
}
}This is IMO a gross unwarranted use of those who decided to participate in
}dnso-ip -- including but not limited to 34, if that is not all of dnso-ip.
}
}Unless this attitude is retracted here and now I suggest that anyone in that
}group
}of 34 (whom you have not named) is signing a blank check for your
}endorsement.
}
}If anyone considers my name in that group of "few dozen .. set to become the
}little
}crystal", due to my previous messages and this dnso-ip list subscription,
}than
}such someone is mistaken.
}
}> They will go out and spread the message.
}
}No -- how can you say that 34 people are going to follow your agenda,
}which has been BTW hidden so far from any public discussion? Do you
}realize you are co-opting 34 people -- who, if they remain silent, are just
}useless since so controlled?
}
}
}> Every day brings more statements of support as a direct result of their
}> evangelism.
}
}Their -- who?
}
}> In the end the mass of individuals with their voting rights in the DNSO
}> remains.
}>
}> This is the vision.
}
}Not mine and that was never said here when dnso-ip started.
}
}> I urge all Domain Name Owners to support it, including those who will
}> participate in the formation of the other constituencies.
}
}On the contrary, I ask you to please erase this bad start and may it serve as
}
}an example of what cannot be done.
}
}Ed Gerck
}
