Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 06:22 27/04/1999 -0700, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> Ed,
>
> It appears that you have misunderstood. I am not talking about subscribers
> to the dnso-ip list, to which my message was copied.
Joop:
I think we have beaten this issue to death today ;-)
In summary, I simply asked you to reset it and restart -- with the benefit
of actually avoid misunderstandings, mine included.
See, you did CC dnso-ip and other lists, but with no CC to IDNO list or at
least a list of individual CCs-- hence the confusion you created. As to whom
you were addressing in your call to "...oppose the idea of constituencies for
the DNSO". A broad statement, as you wrote in your openning phrase.
Further, the dnso-ip list does not have much in common with problems that may
beset individual DNS owners, no? Why then, pray tell, CC them?
Besides, I guess you could have picked up better concepts than "evangelism"
and so on. That is why many people refrain from participating in Internet
groups (and, I can read that very well between the lines of recent messages) --
because no one knows if someone is going to co-opt you later on and then
associate your name with mambo-jambo.
Further, your message was not "about IDNO", but you veritably shrapnelled
all and everyone ;-)
Please, read your message again and verify what it may mean to someone that is
*not* you, that has *not* discussed the things you discussed, that is *not* in the
context of your web-page, that is *not* in IDNO, that has *not* sent you any
messages of support, that has *not* read your IDNO messages either. Well, that is
me and everyone else you specifically addressed with that list of To and Ccs --
btw, apparently the same as above.
> If that were the case, you would be right.
> Please read again the opening lines of my message.
I will quote them below.
> I am talking on behalf of the people whose have sent me messages of support
> and who have specifically stated :
>
> "I support a constituency with no other "admission" criteria than the
> administrative control (ownership) of a Domain name."
> or who have said
> "I want to join the Cyberspace Association".
Notwithstanding the absence of such information in your message but
now in hindsight of it, please verify that it does not support the far stretch
proposed IMO by your message -- when you declared at its openning:
"All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency,
actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO."
It is somewhat surprising how the very people that champion an alternative
solution to centralized DNS control are the oftentimes the same ones that
help corrode the credibility and public-trust of said alternative solutions.
Strife is worse in one's own ranks -- and my reply tried to show that. We don't
need evangelism -- but we need to understand the issues, we need to understand
their diveristy and the right for different needs, we need to avoid damaging the
image, and not only of one initiative but of the general concept of Internet
"self-regulation". Unless we want to provide outside forces good grounds for
stepping in -- and, if the alternative would be widespread chaos and fraud I am
sure that we would even *welcome* centralized regulation from outside.
But, as I wrote before, today, I do not think that centralized control will even
have a chance to work in the Internet. IMO, such attempts will seriously deny
what we today consider the Internet's potential -- though some may be lured to
try it, as if all problems were nails and all tools were hammers. And yet, how to
avoid the onset of degradation if such solutions are even tentatively tried? Such as
IMO is being tried by ICANN in good faith -- and habit. Well, rather than try to
kill ICANN's centralization tendency from outside it is perhaps also a good
strategy to enter the body, multiply, and make it impossible -- so, I do welcome
your initiaitive and that is why I suggest a reset and restart.
Again, I say this not because I abhor centralized control -- in fact, I think it is
very good in a milling machine ;-)
> They have not joined a listserver, we are going to have one shortly.
Then, IMO you add weight to my suggestion that you need to reset, regroup
ranks and present a viable forum before you make your call.
> Listmembers will be asked to express support for the principles that can be
> found on the website. That way, there will be no abuse of trust.
Yes, "there will be" -- but trust is past knowledge supporting future actions.
Not past actions supporting future knowledge. Again, you add weight to my
suggestion -- organize first, then act.
> I have, by necessity, communicated with them by means of cc. As openly as I
> could, under the circumstances.
> In the spirit of opennes I just wanted to give you all a progress report.
This is fine and good; perhaps an entirely different text could serve that
purpose.
> I think the rest of what you wrote would not have been written if you had
> read more carefully.
No, Joop. This is not the question. I can only read what you wrote -- and
I read it so carefully that I did not dismiss it off-hand. Was I wrong? Possibly --
I might have commited a serious mistake. But if my private mailbox can be proof,
as well as the list messages I read in these various listservers today, then I think
that is not so. The collective impression is that the message could have been written
and sent more carefully.
But ... this is the Internet! Everything is under construction. What I read neither
supports nor disfavors your initiative. Please take the constructive criticism that
you feel you may need to, discard the rest and please try again.
> Cheers, and please lend your support to an Individual DN owners' constituency.
> There is definitely room for those who accept 8 constituencies in the DNSO
> , one of which will be the Individual DN owners'. :-)
Yes, as a principle I believe no constituency is too much if it is needed. But,
please,
show it is needed.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
