Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of John B. Reynolds
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > If you ask wether ISOC isn't more "qualified" than the ICIIU
> to organize
> > > the non-commercial constituency, shouldn't you also ask who
> is the more
> > > disqualified of the two?
> >
> > It is precisely the question of "who is the more disqualified"
> > that prompts
> > list members to debunk the "ICIIU". One has to question whether a
> > one-person operation can be considered an "organization" in any
> real sense
> > of the word, even if it does possess an easily obtainable Delaware
> > incorporation. By contrast, ISOC has a real membership
> composed primarily
> > of real individuals.
>
> John, in ANY US court, if ICIIU is a DE corp it IS, by
> definition, a legally entitled organization. The number of
> members are irrelevant. The ease with which such a license is
> obtainable is also irrelevant. The legal entity has legal rights,
> period, full-stop. Are you one of those that maintain that we
> should ignore the law? I think that we have had enough of those
> types of arguments already. IMHO, it is one of the MAIN reasons
> that the Internet is in the shape it is in. Proper attention to
> the legal details, verses denial, early on, would have taken care
> of many of these issues already.
Since when does the phrase "in any real sense of the word" translate to "in
the eyes of the law"? The "ICIIU" may be a *legal* organization, but it is
not a "real" one in the sense that most people understand the term.
>
> Theory is nice, but the rubber meets the road in two places, in
> the courts, and on the wire/fiber. All else is just a big pissing
> contest. It is about time that we, as a group, the Internet
> community, grow up and start acknowledging some reality. We can
> not conveniently start ignoring the law, we'll wind up right back
> where we started, if we get even that far.
>
> > ISOC's NCDNHC application would be acceptable if it were modified
> > to provide for individual membership. It provides means for those
> > who can not attend face to face meetings to participate without
> > resorting to proxy voting, and
> > defines "non-commercial" properly where organizations are
> > concerned.
>
> Yes, these are good points. The likelyhood of the ISOC making
> such a modification is right up there with blizzards in hell and
> the devil getting frost-bite, IMHO. If anything, the ISOC is more
> recalcitrant than the ICANN/IANA.
Which is why, in my reply to Bret Fausett, I called upon ICANN to force ISOC
to make said modification to its proposal as a condition of recognition.
>
> > On the other hand, Mr. Sondow's attempt to redefine the term to
> > exclude ISOC without regard to his new definition's disenfranchisement
> > of most charities, museums, and arts and cultural organizations
> > serves to completely disqualify
> > him as an organizer of non-commercial entities.
>
> No it doesn't, it may limit his attractiveness to those
> organizations, but it doesn't disqualify him. While I may agree
> that it is an unwise marketing move, he has the legal right, as
> the steward of the ICIIU, to make such a definition. He has every
> bit as much right as the ISOC to make theirs, legally,
> politically, philisophically, and in every other "ly". IMHO, the
> ICANN also has the right to decline BOTH applications because
> neither one of them cover the ground, as you point out. The fact
> that the ICANN is most likely NOT going to do that is a problem I
> have with the ICANN, as well as many others.
Joop used the term "disqualified", I echoed it. Admittedly (referring
further down), my statement have been a little "rude and uncouth". However,
"legal right" != "moral right".
>
> I notice that no one ASKED Michael, as a respectable legal
> entity, to modify his application. I did see a BUNCH of rude
> demands and if I were Michael, I would tell y'all to KMA and
> PUAR. I wouldn't blame him if he did. However, as much as he is
> likely to, I would advise him to practice some restraint, for
> marketing reasons.
"Restraint" and "Michael Sondow" are not terms that are normally associated
with one another. Michael made his course of action clear to me in an
off-list discussion a few weeks ago. No amount of polite requests would
have changed his mind. Besides, Michael is usually the one *making* the
"rude demands".
>
> Oh yeah, as a signature note, did anyone notice the evaporation
> of John Zittrain? He quietly unsubscribed from all the lists,
> yesterday. He is not the only one. Some of you might have noticed
> that a lot of folks no longer post here. Between the "Jeff and
> Billy Show", the constant sniping by Crispin/Crocker (and the
> flame-wars that starts off), and other childish rants, a lot of
> folk are leaving the party, or have left already.
>
> Some try to add value to the discussion, others use the lists as
> a forum to practice their verbal snipeing, yet others use the
> lists to prove how rude and uncouth they can be. The first part
> gets completely lost in the other two.
JW and his debunkers have been on the lists for years now, as have your
political opponents. Their presence (assuming JW is still here - his
messages go directly to /dev/null) doesn't explain why they are dying now.
It's just as likely that people are tiring of the constant conspiracy
theories and other assorted ICANN-bashing. More likely than either is that
these lists have been largely dominated by a faction that has been clearly
losing for several months now, and are consequently becoming irrelevant.
>
> I hereby request all of us, including myself, to thoughtfully
> consider the tone of each reply. Let's ask ourselves if it is
> really adding value to the subject. Let us further ask ourselves
> if it could be rewritten in a manner that would be less
> inflammatory, or <gasp> a shade less offensive. A shade less
> aggression, in making a point, wouldn't hurt either. If you are
> going to use a club, at least try to toss a carrot out there too.
>
