[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ron and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Ron Sherwood wrote:

> Dear Jeff:
>
>     Since you use the derogatory term "wimp" to define any member who does
> not approve of and use the aggressive demeanor that you promote. And, as you
> have determined that one who does not participate in your aggressive style
> must "have something to hide", there must be very many wimps and fugitives
> among us. Of course, since I do not respond positively and decline to use
> your uncivilized dialog, I have to be included in that number.

  I believe the first time the term "Wimp" was used in a public way was
by Douglas McGarther just before his an the US forces planned the
retaking of the southern pacific islands in one of his meetings with
than President Roosevelt.  If I recall, President Roosevelt also used
that term several times in that meeting as well.  Ergo, again I am finding
it a bit difficult to describe the term "Wimp" as derogatory and certainly
not a term used by "Civilized" people...

>
>
>     As for the percentage of "regular Joes" like me who are turned off by
> the whole bully-boy attitude and who would rather tune out or disconnect
> than participate in such disrespectful behavior,  I suspect that it is
> larger than you think.

  Perhaps so.  But as I previously requested, please share any data that
you may have or even a reference to such data, that would adequately
support your assertion.  If not, than reasonable people or "Regular Joes",
as you put it, will possibly find it difficult to on face value, except your
assertion seriously.

> One respondent reported that the type of behavior
> that you defend, actually increases participation. Well, if only ten percent
> of our membership were to participate in this discuss list there would be 80
> or so individual postings. I have not counted a quarter of that number
> (including posts and private approval messages from other lists that you
> have cross-posted to). Perhaps the numbers indicate that I under-estimated
> the percentage of "wimps", even after the "increased participation".

  Perhaps so, and perhaps not so.  In any event, from my own experience
and the experience of my staff, others today alone on this forum, it would seem
that you rather grossly over estimate here Ron.

>
>
>     I do not have a scientific survey to prove or disprove what the real
> numbers are, and will therefore withdraw from what one respondent described
> as "wasting bandwidth with pointless dialog".

  Good.  Glad to see that you shall as I suggested, and you now rightly
indicate, that further dialogue along these lines without some specific or
even reference to substantial data supporting your assertion, would
indeed be, as I clearly stated two days ago, a pointless and wasteful
ongoing dialogue, ergo a waste of bandwidth...

> I am sorry that you so
> fervently disapprove of civilized discourse, but I do respect your right to
> that opinion.

  I don't disapprove of civilized discourse.  I embrace it.  I disagree on
your definition as to what civilized discourse is in the modern world and
your earlier contention that Richard was not engaging in such civilized
discourse as to his tone and style or expression in written form due to
his particular desired use of vocabulary to which you seem to be so
troubled and disgruntled by.

> I now feel that further defense of my position is pointless
> and will conserve the bandwidth by relinquishing my portion of it to you.  I
> think "wimp" is the definition you will choose to apply to my decision.

  No, I believe that you have effectively proved or substantiated my and
Richards position, and recognized that your arguments to the contrary
are invalid.  That's all...  I respect your right to express your opinion
in any way you choose.  In fact, in the past I have fought, and shed
my own blood so that you may continue in the right of freedom of
expression.

>
>
> Regards, Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> Cc: "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full"
> <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post on "self-regulation's end"
>
> > Ron and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning, Jeff:
> > >
> > >     I Thank you for your comments and, accept your judgments at face
> value.
> >
> >   Again thank you Ron for you confidence in my judgment.  I am gratified
> > that you place such respect in it, however deflating your follow up
> comments
> > below would seem to indicate otherwise in the scope and tone...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     However, since 90 percent or more of the people that I understand we
> > > wish to represent will fall into the category of those easily turned off
> by
> > > aggressive rudeness and a less than professional leadership image...
> And,
> > > since most will also be supportive only to the extent that we may count
> > > their numbers...
> >
> >   Well Ron, I am not sure where you came up with the "90 Percent" figure,
> > but would be more than happy to review you study data that would support
> > such a high percentage in some great detail.  Perhaps you could share
> > with all of us the supporting data for such a evaluation of yours?  Please
> > advise.
> >
> > >  By far the majority will fit within your "wimp"
> > > description.
> >
> >   Oh?  And how did you arrive at such an evaluation?  I am not saying
> > such and evaluation is incorrect, just that I do not see your evaluation
> > being one that seemingly has the support of already documented fact
> > along with a history of discourse, to which you have already made mention
> > BTW, as being sufficient to support such an evaluation.
> >
> > >  To write that we don't need this large majority of members and
> > > that they will be a "detriment", leaves me wondering who it is that you
> > > expect our organization to represent.
> >
> >   Well Ron, it is not clear by any stretch of the imagination that there
> > is such a "Large majority of members" to which you refer.  Hence I am
> > not yet finding adequate support for this premise, and therefore do not
> > yet see or find the remainder of you argument and especially your
> > desired conclusion adequately or logically supported as a result.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     I would like to also add that your references to the less than
> civilized
> > > demeanor of our American Political establishment may well be accurate,
> but
> > > you seem to forget that most of the world (which we purport to
> represent)
> > > does not reside in America or behave in, or even understand, the lack of
> > > civil intercourse in American public affairs.
> >
> >   American public affairs are broadcast in some 38 different languages
> > around the globe every day, such a CSPAN for instance.  However
> > CSPAN is not the only source of such broadcasts.  There are as you may,
> > and/or should know a number of others that provide such information
> > on a daily basis, and many on an hourly basis in many different languages.
> > Hence I am not sure, and I doubt that you are either, that such a
> > declaration is accurate in today's world.  As I often travel to asia,
> > for instance, even in many of the most remote areas of China, India,
> > and southeast asia, I find that many if not most of the people I come
> > in contact with are very familiar with American Public affairs, some
> > even more so than myself, an American citizen that does stay abreast
> > of American Public Affairs..  Hence, Ron, again I am finding your
> > contention here to fall a little short of what my personal experiences
> > tell me, as well as a number of my staff's experiences as well...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     I have learned that there is a crossposting prohibition on some of
> the
> > > lists that you have copied, so I have limited this response to to the
> > > involved parties and the atlarge discuss list.
> >
> >   Very well.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards, Ron
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > Cc: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
> <declan@well.com>;
> > > <politech@politechbot.com>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
> <ga@dnso.org>;
> > > "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:31 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to
> Politech
> > > post on "self-regulation's end"
> > >
> > > > Ron and all stakeholders of interested parties,
> > > >
> > > > Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good evening, Jeff:
> > > > >
> > > > >     Thank you for your comments and explanation of Richards,
> talents.
> > > His
> > > > > replies to my messages certainly support your position.
> > > >
> > > >   In the language of diplomacy which yo seem to have such a strong
> > > > and obviously needful attachment with, Than YOU for your consideration
> > > > of my response.  However I see that in the remaining part of your post
> > > > below, your comment above seem not to reign true or accurate as
> > > > you state it.  Therefor leaving the unfortunate and rather distasteful
> > > > disguise of being deceptively and deceitfully agreeable in it...
> > > >
> > > > > As wrote in my last
> > > > > message:
> > > > >
> > > > >     "I do bow to your experience with the people with whom you are
> > > > > corresponding. I do not have your history of personal contact with
> these
> > > > > people and, if you have proof that the "in-your-face" attacks really
> > > work,
> > > > > who am I to argue with success?"
> > > >
> > > >   It is exactly Richard's and many others "in your face"
> confrontation's
> > > > with honesty, that have been somewhat successful.  The distasteful and
> > > > inaccurate use of the term "Attacks" is neither diplomatic in this
> > > context,
> > > > Ron, nor is it productive.  Ergo, for someone whom touts the need for
> > > > more diplomatic couching of question such a Richard posed, it would
> > > > seem that you only wish to point the finger at him, in this instance,
> in
> > > order
> > > > to enhance your desire for a more diplomatic approach that lacks the
> > > > very diplomatic language you espouse to desire to be used.  I
> personally
> > > > fine that remarkable and also rather negatively extraordinary...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     However I also explained my perspective:
> > > > >
> > > > >     "My input is from a different perspective.  I joined this
> > > organization
> > > > > believing that it was to represent those Internet users who had been
> > > > > disenfranchised by the change in ICANN policy that eliminated
> existing
> > > > > representation on the ICANN Board of Directors.
> > > >
> > > >   Many feel as you do here.  However this forum is a good place to
> > > determine
> > > > a strategy for addressing this pressing concern, but not a place where
> > > such
> > > > a concern can be actually addressed, as Nancy J. Victory clearly
> indicated
> > > > in here stated remarks on June 12, to the US Senate.  Rather Ron, such
> > > > remarks/concerns should seemingly be directed to the GAC and/or
> > > > Nancy J. Victory herself.
> > > >
> > > > >  Over the past few months, I
> > > > > have seen much internal bickering and name calling, personal attacks
> and
> > > > > language that has painted a less than professional picture of the
> > > fledgling
> > > > > organization.
> > > >
> > > >   Indeed you have, as have I heard name calling, bickering, and the
> like
> > > > on this and other forums for this effort be put forth.  Many times
> such
> > > > bickering is quite refreshing as it is unabashed and not tainted in
> > > > sheepish diplomatic language so s to promulgate or unnecessarily
> > > > extend discussion and debate to no known ends, but rather to
> > > > clearly state where or what direction is most likely to be successful
> > > > such a direct, indiscreet, and unabashed confrontation..
> > > >
> > > > > I have read many messages, the tone of which would discourage
> > > > > potential members from ever joining, much less participating in, our
> > > work.
> > > >
> > > >   Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.  However what seems
> to
> > > > be more of a problem with gaining membership for ICANNATLARGE.COM
> > > > is the fact that as an organization it has not known legitimacy that
> was
> > > stated
> > > > originally by Joop and Pinder as immediate must do tasks to be
> completed.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     And I added:
> > > > >
> > > > >     "It is my personal opinion that, if we are to grow from a few
> > > hundred
> > > > > members with a couple of dozen participants, to a million members
> with
> > > top
> > > > > quality representation, we need to elevate the language of our
> official
> > > > > communications to a level that will be taken seriously by other
> leaders,
> > > and
> > > > > by the government and pseudo government representatives with whom we
> are
> > > > > bound to deal."
> > > >
> > > >   Government and pseudo government representatives clearly understand
> > > > blunt 'In your face" language as is plainly evident in debates on
> CSPAN,
> > > > for instance in the Well of the Senate, as well as on the Floor of the
> > > House
> > > > of Representatives.  Indeed on 9/12 in NYC the president menced
> > > > no words when he made i clear that he understood the feelings of
> > > > the American People and especially the poeple of New York City
> > > > after the terrorists attack on the World Trade Center Towers...
> > > > So Ron, Diplomatic language comes in many forms, and has many
> > > > tenses as well as embraces many styles, such as Richards...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     It was the tone of Richards letter to Mr. Sims that triggered a
> > > response
> > > > > to the picture painted by others.
> > > >
> > > >   Yes this was unfortunately but plainly obvious.  However your
> response
> > > > to Richard was plainly misguided or inappropriate in its conjecture.
> > > >
> > > > > I hope that my message, and your
> > > > > explanation, satisfies the many "wimps" who's support we will need
> to
> > > become
> > > > > viable. Thank you for enlightening me.
> > > >
> > > >   Wimps support no one, not even themselves.  Hence, the need as you
> put
> > > it
> > > > for their support is not only unfounded, but very possibly a
> detriment...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Ron Sherwood
> > > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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