Saturday, July 17, 1999, 9:30:24 PM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My summary:
> I attempted to strongly urge the group a) to focus on its constructive
> goals and to develop workable procedures, and b) to avoid indulging in ad
> hominems and to refrain from ISOC, ICANN, etc. "bashing". Ignoring the
> usual array of individual flammages these efforts acquired back to me, the
> IDNO list moderator/owner eventually rewarded the effort by a formal
> request to vote ostracism, for me and Kent.
Did this include the implication you made that if we didn't issue a
statement explictly supporting ICANN, how could we expect to be
taken seriously? Because you almost used those exact words.
ICANN can't handle having critics in its constituencies?
> The peremptory removal of a list member happened only once that I am aware
> of and involved a different person. Although the person was added back to
> the list quickly (I believe) there was a very clear failure to comprehend
> the serious inappropriateness of the removal.
NO ONE was EVER removed from the list. NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN FOR A SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME. Do NOT believe this LIE.
> Well, gosh. I thought the list of four procedural anomalies I cited
> earlier were pretty serious.
> It is hard to imagine a reasonable view of due process which permits these
> actions.
Those were the statements that have already been proven to be lies
with no basis in ANY facts?
>>bits of truth in some of what you say, they are not supportable toward
>>your end
>>point of IDNO not being suitable to represent its constituency. I rather
>>expect
> If public and open representation is permissible by an organization that
> works hard to stifle dissent and ignore due process, you might be right.
Actually this organization does NOT work hard to stifle dissent and
ignore due process. But I think this could be said about the ICANN
and DNSO pDNC. Shall we discuss the actions of its leader?
>> Finally, since you are a guest and not a member, why does it bother
>> you that
> The use of the term 'guest', for an organization attempting to claim
> representation of such a large constituency and in a public forum, suggests
> a basic mismatch in our views of the obligations for this group.
Until you submit a membership request along with your domain name,
which would then be verified by the membership committee, you are not
a member, and hence are a "Guest." The term is appropriate and
accurate.
>>is your position on the wasting of ICANN money with no result? (Other than the
> There is a difference between stating a sweeping conclusion, versus citing
> details to support the conclusion. I am not aware of spending
> irresponsibilities by the ICANN folks, and hence have no basis for sharing
> your assessment.
Hmm, citing details to support the conclusion. Something you can't
seem to do with your criticisms of the IDNO. Show some facts to back
up your lies please. (Of course, you can't since they are in fact
lies).
>>congressional investigation, that is!) What is your position on ICANN
>>"openness"
>>as regards individual domain name owners, not the IDNO as organizing here? (We
> As I tried to point out to this group long ago, the mere ability to define
> a category does not automatically legitimize it as a "consistency".
> The test of constituency is the banding together of that constituency and
> its pursuit of common goals. What is notable about the very, very large
> (potential) constituency at issue here is the rather serious lack of such
> effort.
Actually this constituency is doing a much better job of that,
including OUTREACH, which NO other constituency outside the IP
Constituency is doing. This includes the unrecognized Non-commercial
(Which still gets to sit "representatitives" on the pDNC. not
surprising I guess since the "representatives" are CORE/ISOC
supporters), the ISP constituency, and the business/commercial
constituency.
So spare us your lies, Dave.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
