John and all,
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> 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.
It is as "Real" as any other organization as it is a legal entity and has
a purpose or set of goals and ideas. Just because you may not believe
in those ideas, goals and it's purpose does not mean that others do not.
How dare you speak or attempt to speak for what ICIIU is or is not! Where
and what authority gives you that right? Are you GOD? or Godlike?
Do you really believe that you are? Are you omnipotent in some fashion?
I think not....
>
>
> >
> > 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.
It would make little difference in the eyes of many what modifications
to it's proposal it made now, as it's own public statements stand for
themselves,
as does and have their own divisiveness actions in the IAHC, gTLD-MoU,
and it's participation practices in the ICANN thus far.
>
>
> >
> > > 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".
Morals cannot be successfully legislated or enforced, they must be broadly
agreed upon. Hence I find this statement just a tad misleading and
frankly, unjustified.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
Restraint is a good thing when practiced in conjunction with opposing
points of view or interests that are acting or espousing those points
of view in an honest fashion. Michael Sondow, and many many others
do not see that occurring on a frequent basis. Frankly, neither do I.
Hence is is appropriate to use language that is a bit more abrupt.
> 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".
Rude Demands? I have only seen questions that have been couched
in a very abrupt manner form Michael. Frankly I do not blame him for doing
so, as it appears that other methods have met with total disdain from
ICANN and it's Interim Board, and in specific Esther Dyson and Mile Roberts.
Many of which have appeared in several news articles that have been
highlighted on this very list.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
Dying eh? Hardly John. But a nice try in denigrating my comments/suggestions
and other questions.
>
> 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.
How do bonified stakeholders become 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.
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
