Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Hello, Cindy, et al. (no, not al bundy)

Please read below.

Cindy Merry wrote:
> 
> Brett:  This is called communication.  As confusing as this process is,
> there is a value in writing our thoughts and opinions.  We have to think
> about what we write and attempt to carefully use words that can be
> understood by as many participants as possible.  It also requires that we
> examine their words carefully in order to try and comprehend.
> 
> Please accept this next contribution on my part as adding to your ability
> to participate even more fully.
> 
> Joanna posted two messages and clearly stated on them to vote yes on one if
> you were in favor of the question or to use the other form and vote no on
> it if you were not in favor of the question.
> 
> I don't think she is 'scolding you' although it comes across in print that
> way.  I think she is saying that you appear to be in favor of reorganizing
> the Domain Name Support Organization to give a voice to everyone.  She is
> trying to fully explain, in her opinion, what this working group is all
> about.  Further she is indicating that by voting no your vote would appear
> to agree with the status quo.  (Perhaps we could call it a case of the
> 'miscarried chad' or an Internet example of the 'butterfly ballot'? :)

Please understand this.

I was not taking what she said, as scolding, and, if that is how my
response was construed, I am sorry.

Perhaps, I should have been more explicit, in what I was saying.

I had understood, that the mailing list/working group was the DNSO, or
part of it, and, that the constiutituencies were part of this forum.

I had perceived the creation of the constituencies, as being the
factionalising of this forum.

The information that Joanna posted, made the situation quite confusing,
to me, to the extent that what I understood the role of this mailing
list/forum/working group, to be, was apparently, completely wrong, and,
I had no idea, what exactly is going on. I am still unsure.

There are people on this mailing list, who have been involved in this
affair, it appears, for quite some time. Apart from some of the weird
comments that have been appearing, from time to time, they appear to
have a much greater understanding of the roles, relationships,
hierarchy, and processes involved. 

I came in late, appears, just before the winding up of the working goup,
apparently, with a misunderstanding of what was going on, and, what this
is all about.

Hence, with Joanna's information, and, with some other information that
has been posted, I found it all too confusing, and, as stated, I had no
idea what was going on.

Once again, I apologise for my confusion, and, for any misconstruing my
message indicating that, as a crticism of Joanna.

I simply did (and still do) not really understand it all.

With all the mailing lists to which I subscribe, I am going through
about 300 incoming email messages each day. Perhaps, I am just swamped
with too much.

If Joanna accepts this, then, I change my vote, from no, to yes, on the
question below, with which I stuffed up her efforts (I did not
gratuitously stuff them up, I assure you), with the reservation that I
believe that the DNSO should not include any constituencies; that each
person should have an equal say, devoid of factions, as I believe that
the existence of such factions defeats any democratic processes, and,
the existence of such factions, without any apparent restriction on the
number of such factions to which a person may belong, and, therefore,
how many votes a person may have, is anti-democratic, and, creates a
system of representation, based on, and, proportional to, wealth.

> 
> Anyway participate all you want.  I think you'll feel better about your
> contributions if you realize that the majority of this working group is
> really looking for a workable system that will increase participation and
> representation within the community of Internet users and potential
> Internet users.  We just don't all agree on how that can be done with
> fairness and equity.
> Now before you blast me with a "one vote, one person" decree.  Step back
> and listen to me for a moment.  I want to vote and participate, but I'll
> acknowledge that there are worthier leaders.  I'll acknowledge that
> investment is an important part of participation.  And I do fear the
> "masses" of uninformed voters who can be swayed by the slickest marketing
> campaign and the best spin.  So how do I balance my desire to have my voice
> heard with my desire to protect this wonderful new communication tool from
> being controlled and manipulated by heads that are brighter than mine?
> Perhaps that becomes the question for you and I, the bottom "users" to
> ponder in this debate.
> For what it's worth a lot of the e-mails I have read have created confusion
> and demanded more thought than I could muster to give adequate input that
> would be helpful.  Everyone agrees that this has been a confusing method of
> discussion and a complicated way to exchange ideas.
> Thanks for listening, now blast away.

I hope, from my response above, that you now better understand my
standing. 

I have thus, left all of the text intact here in this message, as, if,
in the circumstances, this is all read, in the context of what I have
now said, greater understanding of what I was trying to say, and, of my
intentions, may be achieved.

I prefer not to blast anyone, except when they make unjustifiable
personal attacks on me, which, I believe, has not happened in this
forum. I have opinions, in some of which, I believe quite strongly, and,
if, in the expressing of them, I have caused any person to construe my
stating of my opinions, as criticism of them personally, then, I am
sorry. That was not my purpose.

Whilst I damn the activities of one or two on the list, it is the
activity, and, not the person, that I damn. I have referred before, to
the activities that I have damned.

> 
> Cindy Merry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Bret Busby
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:58 PM
> To: jo-uk@rcn.com
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor
> 
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bret,
> > You messed up my filing system by voting no on yes form!
> > Other comments below.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bret [mailto:bret]On Behalf Of Bret Busby
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:34 PM
> > To: jo-uk@rcn.com
> > Cc: DPF; wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor
> >
> > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear members,
> > > I agree with David's comments below, but surely somebody will
> counteract
> > and
> > > thus we are all blocked.
> > > The fundamental issue is whether or not individuals need representation
> in
> > > DNSO.
> >
> > I am here. Am I not represented? Do I not have a right to
> > representation, if I am here?
> >
> > [Joanna] No Bret, you are here I guess because you are subscribed to
> either
> > the @Large mailing list or the GA@dnso mailing list. This is not the same
> > thing as having your interests as an individual represented in ICANN as
> part
> > of a group of Supporting Organizations concerned with Domain Names which
> > currently EXCLUDE all individuals.
> >
> > Yes, you can participate in this WG and make your views known here, but
> > these will only be diluted by numerous other sources that have been
> gathered
> > for the purposes of this review of DNSO.  Once its work is finished, (and
> > there is still some doubt as to whether the original deadline of next
> Monday
> > will be extended), this WG will cease to exist and you, as an individual,
> > will not have any right whatsoever to be consulted in any way about
> policy
> > making at ICANN for the foreseeable future. Your only access to ICANN
> will
> > be through the GA (which is powerless) and your @Large Director (who is
> one
> > person representing potentially millions of people).
> >
> > I understand that there was dissent amongst the NC representatives from
> the
> > other constituencies about whether or not this review should even include
> GA
> > and @Large members and there is certainly no guarantees being given that
> > such outreach will happen again with frequency, if ever. So the answer is
> > no, at this moment in time, you, as an individual, do not have a right to
> > any representation, sorry.
> >
> > That is exactly why some of us here are fighting so passionately to reach
> > consensus on the IDNH constituency issue and at personal expense I may
> add.
> > At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what its called and am
> certainly
> > not inflexible about its constitution. The important thing is not to
> loose
> > sight of the fact that the process as it is evolving now is not and has
> no
> > intention to be democratic. Unless we force the issue, that is the way it
> > will be.
> >
> > In view of all of the above, you may wish to reconsider...:-)
> > Joanna
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > QUESTION: "Do you support representation for individuals in DNSO along
> the
> > > lines of a new "constituency " ?
> > >
> > > YES [         ]
> > >
> >
> > No [X]
> >
> > How many of these factions ("constituencies"), can a party belong to? If
> > a person owns a domain name, and a trademark, and owns a business, does
> > that mean that the person can belong to four separate factions (person
> > faction, domain name owner faction, trademark faction, and business
> > faction), and, therefore, have four times the voting power, and, four
> > times the representation, of that a person, whose only qualification, in
> > these, is that the person is an Internet user?
> >
> > Are Internet users so lowly, and, inhuman, that they do not deserve
> > equal representatiion with everyone else?
> >
> > This sounds horribly like the days, before women's suffrage, when women
> > were property and not human, and, had no rights, and, similalrly, with
> > slaves, when slaves were regarded the same.
> >
> > I understood that this systems was supposed to be about giving people an
> > equal say, about the control of the Internet, and, in the particular
> > case of this working group, regarding domain names.
> >
> > However, it appears to be designed, or, evolving into a system, to give
> > the wealthy, rights proportional to their wealth and assets, so that,
> > once again, the common person is regarded as inferior and undeserving of
> > having an equal say.
> >
> > And, how discriminatory, confusing, and, unwieldy, and, unworkable, do
> > people here, want to make this system?
> >
> > Shall we have a faction for women, to represent women only? Then, shall
> > we have a faction for only women who own domain names? A faction for
> > only women trademark owners? A faction for only those of each particular
> > race? A faction for only those of each particular race, who own domain
> > names? A faction for only those of each particular race, who own
> > trademarks? A faction for only those who belong to each of the large,
> > formal religions? A faction for only those who belong to each of the
> > large, formal religions, who own domain names? A ftaction for only those
> > who belong to each of the large formal religions, who oen trademarks? A
> > faction for only those who own boats? A faction for only those who own
> > boats and domain names?A faction for only those who own both boats and
> > trademarks?
> >
> > So, I say, end the factionalism. Scrap the factions. Give everyone an
> > equal say. (But, then as someone on the list previously said, "Democracy
> > is dangerous".)
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bret Busby
> >
> > Armadale, West Australia
> >
> > ......................................
> > "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
> > answer means."
> >  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> >  - Douglas Adams, 1988
> > ......................................
> 
> I am sorry.
> 
> I now have no idea as to how this all works. It is simply too confusing.
> 
> A federal court judge here, once used a term, to describe a major
> government department's workings; "kafkaesque obscurantism".
> 
> I think that best describes all of this.
> 
> --
> 
> Bret Busby
> 
> Armadale, West Australia
> 
> ......................................
> "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
> answer means."
>  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>  - Douglas Adams, 1988
> ......................................
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

I think, the answer to all the above, basically, lies in my signature
proverb.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html