Hello:
William. Before I respond to you I want to say how refreshing your
correspondence with me has been of late. It's almost like a new you.
You've been polite, well behaved and good natured. You know that sort of
thing is infectious.
If this sort of thing continues, we may yet find ourselves gayly tromping
hand in hand down the yellow brick road. This would be a good thing, as
we can then focus our attention on more important things - like who get's
to take over the world ;-)
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Joe. I regret you see it that way. However I respect your right to that
> opinion. I will point out that what you had access to was not the full picture,
> and even now that full picture is not available, regretably. Also, you were
> not around when this was started, and hence missed so much of what occured at
> the beginning, and the inspiration we all had in Joop and his leadership, and
> how he has done a total 180 degree turn from that position since then.
Well, that's what it looks like. I honestly think you spend too much time
nit picking at unimportant issues, like Jeff William, PCCF and me. You
gota grow out of it. I don't know if you have noticed William, but you
live on a fucked up planet. So by default there are assigned priorities.
The whole IDNO screwup happened because of me. My only concerns were
privacy, and the net result of my addressing my concerns was utter
destruction. If I had known the place was a house of cards, I would of
waited. Then again, the IDNO - like all tests - if it survives, then i'll
water it.
In any event i got what i wanted. Your out of the steering committee, and
the IDNO is back in the control of it's founding fathers. The idno is an
egg which is not yet ready to be layed. What has happned to the IDNO is a
sort of reverse abortion. I have faith Joop can continue the delivery of
the child.
> Unfortunately, myself and others feel it was Joop who instead betrayed us, and
> the principles that had united us.
No - Joop is OK. He's one of the good ol' boys. I understand him
completely. Walsh - you spend too much time wanting to play hitler. And
that can easily cause major organizational failure. Look at the IDNO SC.
One week everybody loved everybody, you nominated Joop, Joop seconded you,
- then bingo, I bring up some minor issue concerning privacy, and everyone
ends up playing the brutus - cesear tango. I call that unstable.
Now Joop can start with less hot heads in charge.
> I will also note that you fail to recall that it was I who nominated Joop to
> the steering committee, and that I was also his nominator in the previous
> election were he declined to sit. I assure you that this betrayal has been a
> most difficult issue for many on the SC to deal with, and that hope remained
> even as recently as Saturday, that the issues could be resolved and the IDNO
> restored.
I remember.
> I regret that was not able to be acheived, but we cannot accept a flawed
> process IDNO simply for the sake that it is the only place that is actively
> working for their representation. If it is not holding itself to at least the
> standard it desires to hold ICANN to, and indeed is betraying its founding
> principles, then it cannot hold on to its mandate.
The IDNO is OK. It needs to develop slowly, like a desert flower.
> The IDNO is not the body that should be representing Individuals in the
> ICANN/DNSO. I still hold out hope that it can become that, but right now, I
> would have to oppose its recognition as such.
I'm on your side there. It's still too early for the IDNO to be
recognised. Recent event have shown it's too unstable and immature. But
it has potential, and I want it to see that potential.
William. Let's work together at building the idno membership. Let's
stick our big magic wands together and see what fizzels ;-)
Cheers
Joe Baptista
--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
