Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 11:15 24/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>In fact, Joop's attack on Dave and I was a pure matter of his 
>personal dislike, buttressed by truly offensive posts from Roeland 
>Meyer,  constant antagonism from William Walsh, and negative messages 
>from a handful of others.  The net effect was a concerted attempt to 
>force Dave and I out of the organization purely on personal grounds --
>something completely at odds with any ideals of openness, 
>trasparency, or democracy.
>
All this happened openly, transparently and democratically. Kent and Dave
cannot be "forced out" of an organization they never joined. My call to
ostracize two notorious trolls was not seconded and no vote was taken.
A long discussion on how a democracy can defend itself against those who
set out to destroy it followed. The upshot is that Mr Crocker and Mr
Crispin and even Mr Connolly are still on the list.

>My general position is still that I am not sure that an IDNO needs to
>exist.  However, I am now convinced that the IDNO that Joop is trying
>to organize is not legitimate, and I will formally request that the
>DNSO and the ICANN board not use it as a basis for an Individual's
>constituency, of whatever stripe.  In my opinion, if there is to be
>an individuals constituency, it must be started fresh by someone 
>with a much better record for neutrality.
>
96 people are convinced that their combined effort *is* legitimate and in
accordance with the ICANN bylaws  on the self-formation of constituencies.
Neutrality , of whatever stripe,  does not enter the picture.
In fact, neutrality would be a highly disabling factor for a bootstrapper
who does the effort of his own volition. 
This constituency is not about to be neutralized.
 


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org