Re[2]: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Joop,

Sunday, September 10, 2000, 1:05:54 AM, you wrote:

> At 21:35 8/09/00 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>The constituency model requires that the organization have some 
>>representational relevance for the constituency it claims to 
>>represent.  IDNO does not satisfy this basic requirement.
>>

> The IDNO satisfies it  just as well, or better , as the present
> constituencies of the DNSO, with the possible exception of the IP
> constituency.  

Wrong again.  The IDNO is an organization. Not a constituency.


>>The matter of IDNO internal difficulties is nothing as simple as "dissent" 
>>but, rather, sustained management strife and instability, coupled with a 
>>complete lack of any constructive activities that pertain to the interests 
>>of the purported constituency.
>>

> "sustained management strife" is easy to create. Just one psychotic or paid
> individual can do it.


But this wasn't want it took for the IDNO to have it.  It took
prolonged dictorial control asserted by one person, and for a group of
(not just one) founding members who, over a period of weeks, grew more
and more frustrated with this type of dictorial control and finally
decided to do something about it.


> a Completed Charter (www.idno.org/organiz.htm)

Shall we get into the history of this "Charter" Joop?  I'd be happy to
expose the facts about the "IDNO Charter process" if anyone really
believes it.

>  , a functioning Polling Facility

Which only gets used when and if you agree with the issues being
presented or you are 95% certain that the position you agree with will
prevail.  This is a matter of FACT, and indeed of your own admission.

> a website that details what has been done

In your revisionist history and biased manner. It is by far NOT
accurate as to the actual facts and events that have occured over the
past year.  You have done everything you can to paint that as a one
man effort to sabotage the IDNO, and everyone knows that is not the
case.

> , lists all members, all

Lists their names, but no contact details.  This means that the
membership cannot be verified, AND that YOU are the only one who has
those details, and the ONLY one who can contact the membership in any
fashion, and only for those reasons that you agree with.  This was one
of the strangleholds you held over the IDNO to prevent anything from
happening that you disagreed with, regardless of the opinion against
you.

> financial details, etc.
> The representational structure is there, accountability is there,
> transparency is there.
> What more do you want? 

Representational???  Accountability??? Transparency??

Joop, you must return for more schooling to learn what those terms
really mean, because if you are saying those exist in the IDNO, then
you are either grossly mistaken as to their meaning, taking the new
meaning of those words from the ICANN dictionary, or being
intentionally deceptive.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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