Re: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 11:47 am +1200 5/11/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 03:28 10/05/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>Joop has seen fit to hold the IDNO up as an example of "democracy" as
>>he sees it.
>>
>Yes, it was set up to be more democratic, accountable and transparent that
>any other constituency.
>The exercise has also exposed the weaknesses inherent in "on-line"
>democracy. The excessive power of  a single dissenting individual with too
>much time on his hands.

Jesus, Joop, don't you ever learn?

>
>>The vigorous opposition to the IDNO does NOT come from those who
>>oppose an individual's constituency, but in fact from some of those
>>who have most loudly campaigned for one.
>>
>Who?  People who argued that a constituency could not be an organization?
>"Vigourous opposition" from 3 votes against 43 that ratified the Charter?


That Charter was the thing that finally paralysed the IDNO.

>
>>The IDNO is not the example of democracy that it's founder wants to
>>portray it as.
>
>Substantiate.

Joop, let's not spread the IDNO crap to this list, huh?

Let's just forget ALL ABOUT IT, and start things afresh. If you continue to
trumpet the IDNO, we'll still be trying to get an IDNHC in 10 years time.

>
>And if he insists on pursuing this line of argument,
>>then the entire mess will be documented here in response to these
>>false claims.
>>
>I think it is about time that the public sees this "documentation".
>Substantiate or lose all credibility. Not here on the GA list, to respect
>Patric and those who are sick of this, but on ga-ext.
>
>Threatening to expose a "mess" , but NEVER substantiating is a tired
>tactic. It has been going on for over 18 months.
>Convincing people that you are right and that the majority is wrong cannot
>be done by simply counting on "IDNO fatigue".
>
>>Rehashing this argument right now is most certainly NOT in the best
>>interests of getting a domain name holder's constituency acted on, but
>>rallying support for the IDNO as the example for that constituency is
>>also not in the bests interests of a real constituency along those
>>lines.
>>
>>Joop needs to ask himself if the personal glory he seeks through the
>>IDNO is worth the price of having this argument again,
>
>Everybody will be served by the truth prevailing.

No. One side will be served. And everyone's effort to get individual's
represented properly in ICANN will be put back another 2 years.

>I have nothing to hide or fear.  Everything is on Public Record.

Do you want me to post that email you sent to the Steering Committee? If I
was the one who penned that acidic piece, I'd certainly not be particularly
proud of it.

>No matter what shape an IC will finally take, and no matter who the
>personalities in it will be,  it will always be the same issues that need
>addressing: representativity and fair majority rule.

Exactly, so why drag out the IDNO skeltons?

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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