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

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

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:51:06 PM, you wrote:

> At 22:22 12/09/00 -0700, Roeland wrote:

>>I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
>>protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
>>would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
>>Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
>>gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
>>principle and for the same reason.
>>--

> Roeland is right.  Ironically , WXW was the staunchest supporter of such
> suspensions here in the GA.

Nice editing job, Joop.  There is a VAST difference in the GA rules,
and the IDNO rules.  The GA rules do not void a persons membership in
the GA, merely their ability to participate in the forum they have
disruptive.

To compare the two is like comparing a prison sentence to the death
penalty.

> He is not even suspended from the idno-discuss list, but clearly he's not
> an idno member any more.

And who decided that, Joop?  I received the voting email, like every
other member.  You made that decision unilaterally.  Without any
consultation with the membership or anyone else.  Heck, Joop, you
didn't INFORM ME!

> An organization in the bootstrap stage is too vulnerable to allow such
> "members". 
> Mr Walsh has put himself outside what the IDNO stands for a long time ago,
> ever since he declared it dead on all other lists including this one.

> The last time, when he posted to this list :

>>
>>The IDNO should not be added.  It is not a constituency, and as it
>>stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.
>>
>>No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
>>That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
>>setup.
>>

> he directly negated our ratified purpose and mission statement.
> ---------
> 1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the Domain name Supporting
> Organization (DNSO) for all individual Domain Name Owners. We represent the
> concerns of individuals who own domain names, rather than organizations.
> These concerns include the wish to remain free from being classified as
> commercial or non-commercial.

> 1.2. Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners , as
> stakeholders in the Domain Name System (DNS), will have a say in all new
> ICANN rulemaking that will affect their financial interest, on-line freedom
> or security of existence. 

> and

> 2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN
> board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the
> provisions of the ICANN Bylaws and with the US government's White Paper and
> allow it to contribute 3 elected representatives from among its members to
> the Names Council of the DNSO.
> --------

NOTHING in that mission is in disagreement with me.  I merely see the
distinction between the IDNO and the "Individual Domain Name Owners
Constituency."  The two are not the same.   Everything else in the
mission statement is consistent with everything I have stood for and
supported.

Face it, YOU removed me from the membership because you don't like me,
and because I am the voice of dissent and do not agree with your every
word.

> I he had any decency, he would have left on his own accord instead of
> staying around to sabotage and discredit the organization.

> art 4.11 is an emergency measure by which a constituency (or any on-line
> organization)  made up of individuals can protect itself against loose
> cannons.
> A single individual has a lot of rights and power in the IDNO.
> Consequently, the majority must have the rights and power to remove a
> destructive 'member'.

Read previous message.  A constituency cannot remove a member who
meets the qualifications.  Rules of civil behavior on forums of the
constituency are entirely appropriate, but a constituent is a
constituent, regardless.

Your failure to understand that is why you will never form a
constituency.

> 4.11 is worth reading in full.  www.idno.org/organiz.htm
> Don't rely on a "summary".

Please read it, nothing I said was incorrect or misinterpreted.

But that doesn't change that it is flat our inappropriate for a
charter for a "constituency" or for any organization that claims to
stand for the protection of "rights."  The irony of it all is rather
amusing, much like your unilateral action to remove my membership
yesterday without any consultation or notice.

-- 
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