RE: [ga] Re: 'constituency' and 'GNSO'

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 15 Jun 2003 at 6:36, Eric Dierker wrote:

> We are right back to the old catch 22.  Participate and lend legitamacy or
> abstain and let the train over you. I do not know the answer.  But GNSO
> elections would begin a process that is lacking. e

Eric,

It's a shame you see it as a choice of play or abstain in a soundproof room.  That is 
a victim's choice.  If you know in advance that a train is racing to obliterate you and 
you cannot even place a call to the engineer, would you simply allow it to do so or 
would work to stop that runaway train before it obliterates all the cars stalled on the 
tracks because the lights and gates don't work and other trains moving around the 
world?  Think of the damage that runaway train can cause as it careens toward the 
rest of civilization and they don't even see it coming.  Suddenly its speed causes it to 
derail itself in the middle of a city, killing thousands of people, destroying buildings 
and an economy.  Since that city is central to the success of most other cities, they 
are all destroyed.  Well, that one train has done them all in, just because the 
engineer (read special interests) couldn't or wouldn't consider that the citizens of 
those cities saw what lies ahead and didn't want that train speeding down the track 
toward them.

Now what could they have done?  Remove the track that this particular trains runs 
on?  Cut the track prior to it's coming close to the cities?  Building other tracks for 
the rest of the trains that eveyone could use?  

Or put it another way.  If a drunk driver is weaving all over a highway, jumping the 
median into oncoming traffic and is oblivious to all other drivers and pedestrians, 
what do you think could be done?  Hmm.... Close off that portion of the highway and 
put up detours?  If he somehow destroys part of the highway because he runs into a 
bridge piling, and the highway was to be closed for years or permanently, what 
then?  Let's see...  Oh yeah,  maybe build connectors to other highways and just 
eliminate the bad section of roadway?  Then, if and when the highway is repaired or 
preferably rebuilt with the cooperation of all the people who use it, it could be 
reconnected to the road system.

Leah 

> 
> > Good reply Sotiris, but you do not and cannot determine ICANN's world and
> > as you well know, it controls not only who plays in its sandbox, but how.
> > That means you would be luring the innocents into a world where they
> > expend all their energy on an effort that can never reach fruition, which
> > is exactly what happened to the rest of us. Worse, you are playing into
> > ICANN's need to put those innocents on display, and use them to bolster
> > its own credibility, which as it stands, is highly questionable.
> > 
> > Joanna
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> >> Sotiropoulos Sent: 14 June 2003 20:22 To: Jim Fleming Cc: Joanna Lane;
> >> ga@dnso.org Subject: [ga] Re: "constituency" and "GNSO"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> >> >To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Who can still say that domain name registrants do not need a
> >> >>Constituency of their own in the GNSO?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >====================================
> >> >
> >> >With all due respect, when you use terms like "constituency" and
> >> "GNSO" you are buying into a structure
> >> >that is pre-determined to be biased **against** the "domain name
> >> registrants".
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't believe in a determinist world.  I believe we live in the
> >> world we make.
> >>
> >> >That just helps to perpetuate "the Big Lie Society", which
> >> un-educated netizens have no idea they are endorsing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The more who take notice, the more that will inevitably be led to your
> >> conclusions if things are as you say.  Would you have a problem with
> >> that?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Why would that be good for domain name registrants ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> More of them might come forward and get to know each other.  I think
> >> getting to know people is a good thing.  Especially when common
> >> interests are involved.  Don't you?
> >>
> >> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 



--
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