Re: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]
At 03:28 10/05/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>
>Joop has seen fit to hold the IDNO up as an example of
"democracy" as
>he sees it.
>
Yes, it was set up to be more democratic, accountable and
transparent that any other constituency.
The exercise has also exposed the weaknesses inherent in
"on-line" democracy. The excessive power of a single
dissenting individual with too much time on his hands.
>The vigorous opposition to the IDNO does NOT come from those
who
>oppose an individual's constituency, but in fact from some of
those
>who have most loudly campaigned for one.
>
Who? People who argued that a constituency could not be an
organization? "Vigourous opposition" from 3 votes against
43 that ratified the Charter?
>The IDNO is not the example of democracy that it's founder wants
to
>portray it as.
Substantiate.
And if he insists on pursuing this line of argument,
>then the entire mess will be documented here in response to
these
>false claims.
>
I think it is about time that the public sees this
"documentation". Substantiate or lose all credibility. Not here
on the GA list, to respect Patric and those who are sick of this, but on
ga-ext.
Threatening to expose a "mess" , but NEVER substantiating
is a tired tactic. It has been going on for over 18 months.
Convincing people that you are right and that the majority is wrong
cannot be done by simply counting on "IDNO fatigue".
>Rehashing this argument right now is most certainly NOT in the
best
>interests of getting a domain name holder's constituency acted
on, but
>rallying support for the IDNO as the example for that
constituency is
>also not in the bests interests of a real constituency along
those
>lines.
>
>Joop needs to ask himself if the personal glory he seeks through
the
>IDNO is worth the price of having this argument again,
Everybody will be served by the truth prevailing. I have
nothing to hide or fear. Everything is on Public Record.
No matter what shape an IC will finally take, and no matter who the
personalities in it will be, it will always be the same issues that
need addressing: representativity and fair majority rule.
and if in fact
>he wants to see the effort to get an individual's constituency
harmed
>by his insistence on his personal agenda over the interests
of
>actually getting this constituency concept advanced further than
it
>has in the past.
>
>Make no mistake about it. The approval of the IDNO as the
domain
>holders constituency, even in spirit, would not be in the
best
>interests of those whom it claims to want to represent.
And thus
>those who believe in doing what is best for those domain holders
will
>oppose it vociferously.
>
If WXW believed in doing what is best for Individual DN
holders, why does he not work on a competing organization to represent
them? Why did he stay as a member inside the IDNO that he publicly
denounced at every opportunity? Posting 80% or more of the list
traffic? Making nuisance motions and calling for resignations?
Obstructing only, but never constructing?
I say: let the majority decide who convinces them on the best way
forward for an IC.
If others will kindly move this discussion to ga-ext, I will only
post there.
--Joop-- Founder of the Cyberspace Association. Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org) Developer of The Polling Booth www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
|