Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:34 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> > > elected officials in Congress.
> >
> >Those wold be Congressmen.  If they do not make comments from Congress who
> >does?
>
> You do not know the difference between stating that something was from a
> person who is part of a group, versus that it was (formally) from the
> entire group?
>

Wait a second here you just added the word formally and changed the meaning. Maybe
it would be more correct for you to say that you meant formally, then we could have
agreement.

>
> No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult.
>

Yes when you just change words in the middle of a discussion.

>
> > > Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency...
> >
> >Their knowledge is only superficial as to what you deem important.  It is not
> >superficial when it comes to reading public support and the protecting the
> >publics' rights.
>
> How does an utterly silly claim that ICANN is responsible for controlling
> pornography on the net serve to protect the public's rights?

One silly statement does not void a Congressman's goals and objectives. My statment
is correct, you are taking a specific and creating a generalization.
"No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult."

>
> > > And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> > > meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> > > discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> > > meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> > > interest.
> >
> >Where does you vested interest lie?
>
> So, rather than provide the basis for your claim, you want to turn things
> elsewhere, such as raising personal questions about me?
>

I was pointing out that your criticism was solely theoretical in that we do not
know where peoples vested interests lie.

>
> > > However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you
> > > cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is
> > > their understanding of serious operations administration for critical
> > > infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals
> > > with practical constraints?
> > >
> >
> >I gather you are saying you do not want anyone who is not frimly
> >entrenched and
> >thinking along the same lines as you,
>
> Eric, if you are going to distort what I say, please at least use what I
> say as the basis.
>
> Better still, try to attend to the questions being posed.  You made some
> assertions and their basis was asked.

This was not my original thread I made no assertions here I only questioned your
dialogue with another member. But I do not see you answering any of my questions
just attacking me for asking them.

>
>
> >You then state;
> >"The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal
> >attacks, and
> >focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it impossible to conduct
> >serious, public discussion about serious, practical improvements."
> >
> >Would you mind stating which deatails are irrelevant?
>
> an example, sure: the popular, irrelevant detail was about the management
> policies for .org.

Let me try to explain why that was relevant.  Because people were worried about
it.  I know that may bother some, but it is a clear fact.  If something going on is
worrying members they should discuss it. Concern for people's stress and
perceptions may not be neat and tidy but it is part of a policy - contributing
body's job.

Sincerely,

--
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