Re[6]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

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

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:41:27 PM, you wrote:

>> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:08 PM
>> 
>> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
>> >> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
>> >> properly belonged on the GA list.
>> 
>> > No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies 
>> is strictly
>> > the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no power there.
>> 
>> It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
>> posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
>> evident proof of.

> There is a huge difference between talking about the IDNO and carrying
> on IDNO internal debate, on the GA list. I'm sorry that you can't see
> that. Oh well...

The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the
IDNO.   What I am sorry to see is that your attitude when criticism of
the IDNO is posted has not changed in many many months.  You try and
make it more about the poster than about the subject.  Let's try and
get back to the subject, for it has direct bearing on the creation of
a real structure for a real constituency.

You certainly see the problem with the current charter of the IDNO, do
you not?  It is fine for a group that is made to be conformist to the
owner's viewpoints.   But that is not what an organization or a
constituency is.

Let's take a US Congressman as an example.  His constituency is made
up of ALL the members of his constituency, regardless of their
political affiliate, regardless of whether they voted for him or for
someone else, regardless of how obnoxious or boisterous they are.

Of course, that does not prevent the Congressman from removing someone
from a townhall meeting for being uncivil or disruptive.  But that
does NOT mean that the person is no longer a constituent of the
Congressman's district.  It merely means that they were removed from
that forum until they can conform to accepted rules of civil behavior.

Do you see the difference, Roeland?

Do you see the excessive opportunity for abuse in the IDNO charter in
contrast to this?  Especially in light of the IDNO owner's past and
recent tendencies towards unilateral action?

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


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