[ga-full] Re: Your message

[Mark Measday <measday@attglobal.net>]

Not sure that anybody can solve the quasi-religious nature of the dissension
here. The best statement I have seen recently is  a quote from Jon Postel (I
think) on the ietf list that you only progress these issues in very small
steps very slowly 'by being liberal in what we accept while being conservative
in what we require'. i.e tolerance all round in the hope of reciprocity.
However, things may be too polarised.

Mark

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> We are not converging.  (I guess that's obvious to all of us. ;-)  And
> none of us here want us to fail.  I don't want to be outside the GA.
> Indeed I find the GA to be the sole light, albeit presently one that needs
> a lot of nurturing and luck, for public participation in DNS policy.
>
> I grew up in the era of Senator Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and Richard
> Nixon, and Curtis LeMay.  Simply put, I do not trust any official use of
> the pronoun "we".
>
> Me, myself, and I are prefectly capable of ostricising those who are
> acting badly.  By my own yardstick, Crispin and Walsh are far more
> destructive than Williams or Baptista have ever been - the former
> systematically and, to my mind intentionally, destroy process and
> agreement, the latter throw insults and irrelevancies.  Your own yardstick
> probably varies in your assessment of relative degrees of destructive
> behaviour.
>
> Over the last two+ years I've seen ICANN trample all notions of open
> process, of transparent operation, of public accountability.  I've been
> defamed and belittled by ICANN's officers and attorneys.  I am utterly fed
> up with ICANN.
>
> I have reached the point where I am now saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm
> not going to take this any more." (From the movie "Network", 1976)
>
> I've compromised far too many times with ICANN and its structures.  I've
> given ICANN and its structures too many benefits of the doubt.
>
> As such, I am not going to compromise my principles further and
> participate in a forum in which officially opposed censorship is imposed.
>
> I personally see no burden in private lists derived from the main GA list
> that have their own censorship policies.  The only effort involved (other
> than that of the operator's job) is for a person to unsubscribe (but not
> leave - see my comments below) the GA and subscribe to the private list.
>
> When I balance that minor inconvenience against censorship I (quite
> easily) come to the conclusion that avoiding censorship is worth a small
> bit of inconvenience.
>
> > >3) The list of people who are "members" of the GA and who have posting
> > >privileges would then be disjoint from the list of names in the GA's
> > >/etc/aliases file, but that's OK.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand, but I don't have the feeling that this is a
> > very difficult point to manage. But maybe I don't get the real meaning.
> > Please elaborate.
>
> There is this strange notion handed down the the NC that membership in the
> GA is composed of exactly the names on the GA mailing list.  As such, if a
> name is not found on the GA mailing list (even if that person receives GA
> mail via a censored exploder) then that person is not a member of the GA.
>
> The notion of "membership" needs to be decoupled from the notion of "being
> on the mailing list".
>
>                 --karl--




--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html