Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: Discuss constituencies, don't call for them to meet

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ a écrit:

> A more-careful reading of my opinion would show you that I said exactly so
> much: discuss constituencies online before Singapore, don't form them yet.

You also said: "the ICANN interim board could be looking at a 
sampling of what some of the constituencies memberships will be, if
they
tend to group as such during the F2F meetings." So, which is it, Mr.
Baruch: no constituencies in Singapaore, or constituencies in
Singapore?

And if you say "Constiteuncies in Singapore", or "sample
constituencies in Singapore", I'll reply that if the people who
attend the DNSO meetings in Singapore are a true sampling of DNS
interests, then air travel must have become free. Because the last
time I looked it cost about USD$1,500 to attend those meetings, at a
minimum, so we can see right off just how representative they will
be (i.e. NOT).

> I do believe there may be a sampling of what constituencies may taste > like but that is as far as Singapore can go.

Oh, no it can't (see above). As a matter of fact, it can go nowhere
except to artificially reinforce the influence of big business and
their trademark lawyers, who have plenty of money for travel. Oh,
and maybe the leaders of ISOC and such, who use their members' money
to fly around the world to go to these meetings and help the
business people manipulate them. 

> Why, even the "subject" field says
> so.

Oh? Then why in the body do you suggest forming "sample"
constituencies in Singapore?

> As above, I agree with you. Read carefully. 

Oh, I read carefully. Maybe you should write a little more
carefully. Or maybe you should not put a title to a message that
says the opposite.

> Singapore whould delve into the issue and refrain from forming 
> the groups even if the temptation to do so is large and they 
> appear to "be there" by then.

So, you ARE suggesting that Singapore will be representative of the
constituencies that would form naturally. That's what I thought.
You're rather clever, eh, Mr. Baruch? You say you don't mean to
imply that ... (etc., etc.); then you imply it. Ha-ha. Neat trick.
Language means nothing, people are dumb, you can get away with
anything, just like Kent Crispin. Hurrah for the cupidity of the
Internet, we're easily duped. Eh? Or are you tricking yourself?

> This paragraph of yours, referring to my membership in ISOC, can easily be
> construed as an ad-hominem argument, to disqualify my opinion on grounds
> of my membership. 

Not at all. I was merely pointing out the obvious truth: that you
belong to an organization that supports the forming of pre-defined
constituencies. This makes what you say in your message easier to
interpret.

> What do I have to be in order to be credible to you?
> Schizo, so that I can't even recognize views in accordance with my own
> when I see them?

I'm not sure what you want to say here, and frankly I don't think I
want to know. But I can tell you this, since you've used the word
schizo (not I), that saying you agree with someone who has said
clearly that they think there should be no formation of
constituencies in Singapore, and then to suggest that there will be
formation of constituencies in Singapore, as you have done, well,
just what would you call that, Mr. Baruch?