>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 18 12:43:18 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.bayarea.net [205.219.84.13])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A65F0A5
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from shell2.bayarea.net (shell2.bayarea.net [205.219.84.7])
> by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11806;
> Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from dave-vaio (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106])
> by shell2.bayarea.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26637;
> Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.56 (Beta)
>Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:54:33 -0700
>To: Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
>Cc: Andy Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <v03102805b3b6cb8c771c@[202.27.208.23]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <v03102802b3b6759a12eb@[202.27.208.23]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>At 02:38 AM 7/18/99 , Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 07:32 PM 17/07/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> >1. Enforcement of participation rules, post hoc and without documentation
>> >or group approval
>>Not true.
>
>You repeatedly asserted rules that were undocumented. At one point you
>finally described such positions as justified since any 'civilized' person
>should know the correct behavior.
>
>> >2. Assertion of organizational goals which were without documentation and
>> >without group approval
>>Not true.
>>The organizational goals were documented on the website ab initio. The
>
>There was brief broad language. That's not enough be provide one with any
>serious basis for judging the group. In effect, the language said that the
>Individual Domain Name Owners group had the goal of representing owners of
>domain names. A goals statement should have a tad more detail.
>
>>membership rules have been approved by vote of the whole membership. The
>>whole charter will be reviewed by the newly elected steering committee,
>>amended if needed and subjected to the vote of the whole membership.
>
>I'm glad to see that you are (months later) finally developing the detailed
>documentation that Kent and I were recommending you pursue.
>
>> >3. By fiat calling for a couple of ostracism votes against participants
>>Not by fiat, my friend. If you read the thread again, you will see that I
>>called for seconds to proceed with the vote. Nobody seconded. The vote did
>
>You have characterized what took place a couple of times now, in ways that
>differ from the facts. I do not recall any request for seconds. Simply a
>spontaneous call for an ostracism vote by you.
>
>Hence, you invoked a procedure for which the group had had no prior
>discussion or approval, and you invoked it because of our supposed
>violation of rules about which the group had had no prior discussion or
>approval.
>
>>not proceed. You are still on the idno list. How much less dictatorial
>>do you want it?
>
>Quite a bit, Joop.
>
>It's clear that there is a basic deficiency in your understanding just how
>serious your own violations were.
>
>>I made a threat against people who were wilfully ignoring and challenging
>>reasonable list-rules and were in effect trying to disrupt our
>
>Since they were undocumented and had no group discussion or approval,
>invoking them was entirely arbitrary on your part. There are many
>"reasonable" things possible in the world, but they are not all in force.
>
>> >4. By fiat removing a participant who never expressed any desire to be
>> >removed.
>>See my previous posting on this. NOBODY HAS BEEN REMOVED.
>
>You have already stated that you DID remove someone without their permission.
>
>You are now characterizing it as a "mistake" that you "corrected". In fact
>your action was quite intentional.
>
>>There is nothing left of this "list".
>
>Joop, it's understandable that you would want to dismiss or trivialize the
>nature and details of your actions.
>
>>Just be honest and say that you Kent and Dave, do not like our existence,
>>do not like our voting system, do not want us in the DNSO and will do
>>*anything* to stop ICANN from accepting us as a constituency.
>
>You impart considerably more emotional tone and more motivation to me,
>about this, than I feel and certainly more than I've shown. Again, this
>indicates the difficulty you have shown receiving any criticism.
>
>In any event my position, now, is that IDNO does not represent the stated
>constituency and has much too flawed a history to justify its being selected.
>
>>Now, as we do not have any elected moderators, may I just ask you politely
>>to behave as good guests and stop the provocations?
>
>Since I have only been responding to a discussion initiated by others, and
>have been providing my own recollection of facts, you need to consider the
>implication that you find such postings "provocative".
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
