[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] FW: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: Filibustering
-----FW: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: Filibustering-----
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 16:07:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: Filibustering
Cc: IDNO <idno-discuss@idno.org>
On 03-Nov-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Arnold,
>
> On-line there is not really such a thing as filibustering. Except as an
> attack on bandwidth (excessive quoting, attachments, long articles).
>
> The online equivalent of filibustering is trolling: constantly making
> useless or insulting remarks in the hope to provoke the other party and
> spark a flame war.
> Such a flame war drives the constructive participants out and also attacks
> the bandwidth-poor.
>
> An effective Chair has to be firm about trolling. The current list rules as
> ratified under the RRM, would give you some latitude.
>
> WG-D, when asked to deal with trolling in WG-C, came up with a 2 posts per
> day limitation.
> This might be used in the no-chair time slots that you envisage.
Misrepresenting the record here, Joop?
In your mind, trolling is anytime someone calls into question your process.
Joop, you have been very hypocritical on this lately.
Let's take a look at one page:
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/democinaction.htm
I See nothing in the rerailing proposal that includes list moderation rules.
Secondly, I would like to note something at the bottom of the page I find
rather amusing, and just further evidence that Joop doesn't walk the walk, and
it all talk when it comes to process and fairness.
From the site:
====================
After an intense two week debate on the fundamental issue of how the
Individual Domain name Owners will be represented within
their own
organization the following motion has been made by Joop
Teernstra and
seconded by Domingo Baron, Cris Streatfield and Arnold
Gehring:
1. That the fundamental question of a representative vs.
an
administrative role for the future Steering Committee be
resolved
by a vote of the entire membership.
2. that such vote will be solicited in the form of 3 options
a. Direct Democracy conducted in a General Assembly of
Members.
b. A role for the Steering Committee to carry out policy as
representatives of the
members.
c. A mix of both options a and b in various forms (Voters who
prefer this option
should put forward their own idea's for a compromise solution
on the comments line in
the Booth.)
3. that the proponents of any of these options within 24
hours provide a
text to argue their position for the voters and if this is
not forthcoming
the ad hoc de facto Chair dealing with this motion will
distill the
arguments from those that have been advanced on this list and
provide
the right pointers to the list archive.
4. That the Polling Committee will poll the members forthwith
with
these options with the text of the respective arguments
included for
guidance.
The members were ballotted on this issue starting 10 Oct.1999
The result of this ballot was as follows:
Total votes cast for all options = 44.
Option A; Bottom-up democracy received 19 votes, (43.18% of
total)
Option B; Representative structure received 19 votes, (43.18%
of total)
Option C; A mixture of both A & B received 8 votes, (18.18%
of total)***
*** One member emailed in to declare that they had made an
error and accidentally voted for two options
instead of only one. The options selected were A & C and the
member wished to ensure that only option A
was included. In that light the vote for option C is reduced
to 7 votes and A remains unchanged. -----
====================
Note that Joop includes HIS proposal in the summary on the site, almost in its
entirety. Yet there is no mention of the other proposal on the site, except in
the vote count.
Joop uses this website as his personal propaganda tool, and it is not the
IDNO's website. If he had any sense of fairness and his so called "democracy"
then he would of included both proposals here, or neither of them.
Instead he tries to paint his own proposal in the best possible light, and
pretend that the other one is just the result of "rabble rousing" trolls.
Two people in the IDNO, both of whom are making honest efforts to try and
reform the IDNO, have asked me why I am not being more....supportive... of
their efforts. The simple truth is that as long as Joop is in control (and
have no illusion, he is the one in control) that there is no way to reform this
organization, and that any such effort will fail. This is just one more piece
of evidence that shows why.
Joop doesn't want questions of process to be addressed in the IDNO. He knows
that his actions will not stand up to that type of scrutiny. In his mind
though, his actions are justified DESPITE the fact that they are not fair and
breach every concept of process that he has hammered ICANN to follow. He
thinks that he is justified in having flawed process because of "the enemy."
The only enemy the IDNO has right now, is Joop himself. He believes that he
can be some fatherly oversight figured who doesn't let the IDNO move down paths
he doesn't think are appropriate. This is ok, because he knows what is best
for us, after all. And anyone who doesn't agree MUST be the enemy, right?
This quote from Esther Dyson at the Santiago meeting sounds awful close to
Joop's postings of late:
"With all due respect," she told the audience, "we are less interested in
complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving
forward."
You can see the criticism I made of this comment here:
http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/30/1418234.shtml
It smacks of "Adult Supervision" type management model, which is exactly what
Joop has been setting up for the IDNO, while criticizing ICANN for doing the
same thing.
Joop has criticized ICANN for closed meetings, with no public archives or
minutes, and yet has supported the same in the IDNO.
The similarities and inconsistencies go on and on.
The bottom line is Joop says one thing somewhere else, but in the IDNO his
actions don't jive with his "ideals."
So is this "trolling," or is this raising a very serious issue of process, that
has plagued the IDNO since its inception? Some people on this list support
Joop doing this, because so far he has not done it in a way they disagree with.
They are willing to overlook issues of process when things are going the way
they support. But is that how a membership organization is supposed to be run?
Joop has been the front man supporting his "direct democracy" ideal, but he
himself setup a representative structure at first, and only switched to this
"ideal" when it started to look like he couldn't "direct" the SC. Do you deny
this, Joop?
Personally, I'm sick of it. I'm sick of him characterizing people who
challenge him on issues of process as "trolls" and other derogatory terms. I'm
sick of him lying here and on other forums, making it look like him and the
IDNO are "victims." I'll agree the IDNO has been a victim, but it has been a
victim of extremely bad process and abuse of trust by one person who thinks
that an "Adult supervision" model hiding behind the term "democracy" is the
right path for the IDNO.
I'm sure I'll get attacks for this from the usual circles. I only want to
point out to them that had Joop done things that they opposed, they would be
the ones crying out about process. I'll admit to having been guilty of that
myself, and not challenging Joop's actions when the SC was first formed, as I
should of. But again, I saw no harm, and nothing be done I disapproved of, so
I let process suffer. It is really easy to do when things are going your way.
But at the price of setting a really bad precedent that lets one person believe
that doing things this way is acceptable.
When process is examined closely, it can start to look like nitpicking. I
understand some people have seen it that way. But you need to look at the
bigger picture. The ends do NOT justify the means.
I've taken the liberty of CC'ing some other lists on this post. Why? Because
Joop has made posts, even recently, to those lists portraying the efforts of
people to maintain fair process as attacks on the IDNO, and to portray those
people as "enemies" of the IDNO. Joop would of made a great participant in the
Salem Witch Trials or the McCarthy Hearings. Yes, that is an
over dramatization, but it shows his propensity for "labeling" those disagree or
challenge his actions with derogatory terms that he can then use to discredit
and discount them.
The IDNO doesn't NEED Joop. The IDNO doesn't need any ONE of us. It needs a
fair and open process that can stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't need a daddy to
decide things for it, or to take it upon himself to do things just because he
thinks it is what is best. It doesn't need to pay lip service to process, it
needs to be a shining example that process CAN be followed and to show that
open processes do work. Then when we criticize ICANN for not being open and
not having a solid process, our criticisms can have some bite, for we can point
to a structure we have all built that DOES have those safeguards, where every
member stands on equal ground.
It is really rather funny to watch Joop at times. At one point he wanted to
move voting on many things to a "list general assembly" so that only list
members would vote on some things. Then later he backtracked and wanted ALL
votes to be full membership votes including members who elected not to join the
main IDNO list. Why? He realized that he didn't have the plethora of support
behind his positions on the list as he thought he did. Then when someone else
suggests that some votes take place on the list, he very vocally attacks them
and their proposal as being anti-democratic. Well, sheesh, with a label like
that who could support it? Joop is good at labeling and using buzz words, and
normally this wouldn't be an issue, but with Joop being in the position of
De facto administrator of the IDNO, it really IS an issue. He is the sole
person with access to the full membership, with access to the website, etc.
The only exceptions are those that agree with him, so he felt comfortable
giving them some small measure of access.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
--------------End of forwarded message-------------------------
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/