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

[Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>]

Dear Mr. Sondow,

a bit of clarification on my name first, please address me as Alejandro
Pisanty - the intercultural aspects of how we build family names in Mexico
may be far above your head. Plus, blinded by anger, you need not approach
the filigree of human relations with any delicacy. Let's come back to your
well established, heavy-handed approach. Replies follow:

On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:

> 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." 

Emphasis on *could*, Mr. Sondow. It gives a tentative meaning, speaks of a
possibility as opposed to fact, certainty, or prediction. Somewhat similar
to "might"  (verb).

We don't know well who is going to Singapore. As you yourself mention it,
people who can for the occasion muster money, time, interest and/or
commitment. That's why I think intense online discussion on concrete
issues before, during and after the meeting are indispensable and stated
so clearly for those before; plenty of other participants have already
clamored for the rest. Now: the board *could* be looking at a sample, if
there gathers such one. Not of every constituency, mind you, not
representative, either, just a sample. Not improbably a can of worms. But
a sample: it may allow them and us to know better what we and them will be
dealing with further on. Biased sample if you will (air travel will not
become free, for sure, not for your benefit nor mine), but sample.

In consequence, I call on you as well as on the board and on the
attendants to Singapore to consider this sampling and not to jump to any
conclusions (like incorporating the constituencies!) even if it seems
tempting to believe that "we are all here so let's start the party".

So, which is it, Mr.
> Baruch: no constituencies in Singapaore, or constituencies in
> Singapore?

It clearly is "discuss constituencies in Singapore" and get an idea of
what part of them are like. Clear enough? If you want it more clear-cut
you'll make it useless. All rigor is good except if it becomes mortis.

> 
> 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).

Maybe a lot of people in Asia thought just as much when the meetings took
place in the Americas... maybe your perspective is geographically biased
on this issue. Where do you write from? (just curious, it seems a lot
like from the US from the evidence of times of your messages).


<<< Forgive me Mr. Sondow, in this part I clipped a large bile spill on
your part, for the list readers' benefit >>>

> 
> Oh? Then why in the body do you suggest forming "sample"
> constituencies in Singapore?
> 
Didn't. I must again ask you kindly to read carefully. Re-explained above
anyway. Enough.


> > 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.
> 
<<<< More bile, Mr. Sondow. Bad for your health. Plenty exercise for the
liver, though. Your health, not mine, at stake. >>>>


> > 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? 

Pisanty, Mr. Michael. Thanks for quoting in such detail my proposal for
NOT believing that a representative constituency will be present in
Singapore, not, for sure, for any type of final decision.

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?
> 
<<<<Bile again. What a messy spill. Your supply is amazing. It helps
no-one for me to explain again. >>>>


> > 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.
> 
To my knowledge ISOC is not a monolithic party. I have not been issued any
instructions on this or any other matter, other than from the MX chapter
which started as a small grassroots organization, got concentrated, and
we are reopening as fast as we can. It's your interpretation and nothing,
no one, and especially no fact is going to change it. Do I care?


> > 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.

Cool-headed readers will read your words as "touche' ". Sparring with you
gets too predictable after observing you a few weeks. Thanks for giving me
the opportunity to clarify my position and bring it forward. Over and off.
Work to do. Let's come back to real issues and help prepare a useful
meeting for Singapore.

Alejandro Pisanty